From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30266 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2007 12:05:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 30254 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jul 2007 12:05:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:04:56 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7769829E for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 12:04:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B759817C for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 12:04:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I7rz2-0001AX-JT for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:04:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:05:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [MI] lvalues and variable_editable Message-ID: <20070709120452.GA4011@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <18048.64048.398970.186217@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070703161533.GF2868@caradoc.them.org> <18059.3627.269075.427280@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18059.4081.679819.107248@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070704031408.GA25672@caradoc.them.org> <18059.5491.279643.514165@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18065.52462.459675.416595@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18065.52462.459675.416595@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-07/txt/msg00144.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 05:51:42PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > (Me) > > > Anyway let me submit a more complete patch, in due course, for consideration > > after the release. > > This is what I have in mind. There are no regressions, at least with MI (I > can't test Insight). If there's still time, this could go in before the > branch. I also have a (much smaller) change, that I've submitted earlier, for > after the release which adds the editable field to the output of -var-create > and -var-list-children, . Thanks for doing this. I have two questions for you. - Why do variable_editable_p and varobj_value_is_changeable_p have to be different? That is, do we need varobj_value_is_changeable_p to be true for any non-lvals. If not, we can eliminate one of them. - Why do you need to re-evaluate the expression? I think we can use var->value, and report anything with a NULL value as non-editable. No point editing it if we can't save it somewhere. Also, I think varobj_value_is_changeable_p was missing from your changelog (if I've correctly understood where one hunk of that patch goes), and the patch had "variable_editable_pv" in it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery