From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [MI] lvalues and variable_editable
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:16:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070703161533.GF2868@caradoc.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18048.64048.398970.186217@kahikatea.snap.net.nz>
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:36:16PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
>
> I've been wondering what the difference is between varobj_value_is_changeable_p
> and variable_editable. Recent discussion on the gdb mailing list makes
> me think that, in essence, a value is only changeable but not editable when
> it's an lvalue -- but currently varobj.c doesn't capture this difference.
>
> Here are two experimental patches:
>
> 1) varobj.c: Test if the value of variable object is an lvalue. I think this
> can only occur for root values.
I'm still a bit confused but I think this is because I read "lvalue"
and think of the C language meaning. An lvalue is something which can
occur on the left hand side of an assignment. So it can happen for
children too, for instance.
Right now a value is "changeable" unless it is a fake child
(e.g. "public"), a struct, a union, or an array. This makes some
sense since the value we print out for those cases is not useful for
editing. For instance "{...}". Their children will, I believe, be
changeable.
A value is editable in C unless it is a struct, union, array,
function, or method. C++ adds the fake access children again.
So the only things which are editable but not changeable are functions
and methods. That doesn't seem like a useful distinction.
Back in revision 1.1, fake children and structs and unions were not
changeable. Those and arrays, functions, methods, and members were
not editable. That doesn't make considerably more sense to me either.
The difference in usage seems to be that we forbid attempts to modify
non-editable variables, and we omit reporting changes for
non-changeable variables.
> It would seem sensible to define variable_editable using
> varobj_value_is_changeable_p and I don't think language dependent versions
> aren't needed.
I agree. But is there anything which should be one and not the other?
Maybe we can dispense with changeable entirely.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-03 16:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-26 11:46 Nick Roberts
2007-07-03 16:16 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2007-07-04 3:04 ` Nick Roberts
2007-07-04 3:11 ` Nick Roberts
2007-07-04 3:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-07-04 3:35 ` Nick Roberts
2007-07-04 15:57 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-07-09 5:51 ` Nick Roberts
2007-07-09 12:05 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-07-09 12:38 ` Nick Roberts
2007-07-10 1:45 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-07-09 12:46 ` Vladimir Prus
2007-07-09 13:13 ` Vladimir Prus
2007-07-10 0:49 ` Nick Roberts
2007-07-10 17:14 ` Vladimir Prus
2007-07-11 1:26 ` Nick Roberts
2007-07-11 6:46 ` Vladimir Prus
2007-07-11 7:10 ` Vladimir Prus
2007-07-11 11:57 ` Nick Roberts
2007-07-11 13:09 ` Vladimir Prus
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070703161533.GF2868@caradoc.them.org \
--to=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=nickrob@snap.net.nz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox