From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31470 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2007 14:49:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 31459 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2007 14:49:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:49:29 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2qNq-0006YT-5H; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:49:26 -0500 Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:49:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: MI - Detecting change of string contents with variable objects Message-ID: <20070105144926.GC24554@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17798.19683.251190.740216@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <17821.25837.573239.858406@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070104205039.GH24634@nevyn.them.org> <200701042358.59475.ghost@cs.msu.su> <17821.55336.12928.800849@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17821.55336.12928.800849@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00190.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 05:46:32PM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > I'm not sure if we'll do that any more after your patch, e.g. if something > > > beyond the limit of "set print elements" changes. So, do you think any > > > front end relies on the parent being marked updated if any of its children > > > are? Vlad, any opinion? > > > > I think the code in question is never executed for structures or arrays -- > > only for "changeable" values. > > I agree. Below is my latest patch, incorporating some of your suggestions. This looks fine to me if it's fine with Vlad. > gdb_assert (!value_lazy (var->value)); > ! gdb_assert (!value_lazy (value)); > ! > ! if (!value_contents_equal (var->value, value)) > ! changed = 1; Why are you removing the second assert here? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery