From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16612 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2007 07:07:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 16503 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2007 07:07:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su (HELO zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su) (158.250.17.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:07:42 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with spam-scanned (Exim 4.50) id 1H35eP-0003XM-QP for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:07:38 +0300 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ip6-localhost) by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.50) id 1H35e8-0003V8-Hc; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:07:16 +0300 From: Vladimir Prus To: Nick Roberts Subject: Re: RFC: MI - Detecting change of string contents with variable objects Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:07:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17798.19683.251190.740216@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070105144926.GC24554@nevyn.them.org> <17822.51428.312664.972742@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <17822.51428.312664.972742@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701061006.32750.ghost@cs.msu.su> 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/msg00204.txt.bz2 On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > 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? > > Argh! Vladimir had the same question, I thought I'd put it back. I have now. > I've also used: > > strcmp (var->print_value, print_value) != 0 > > since that method seems to be the norm in varobj.c, and GDB generally. > > I've committed this change, which you might not like, because I think Vladimir > is agreeable to it. Of course, I'll make changes, including reversion, if > there are problems. To clarify, I am still not comfortable about the change that's supposedly needed only for 'char*' variables but yet affects variables of all possible types -- especially given that we don't any mechanism to customize display of other types yes. At the same time, we have enough time now to discover any possible fallout, so we can try. - Volodya