From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8883 invoked by alias); 29 May 2008 07:55:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 8872 invoked by uid 22791); 29 May 2008 07:55:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 May 2008 07:54:47 +0000 Received: (qmail 17573 invoked from network); 29 May 2008 07:54:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 29 May 2008 07:54:45 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Nick Roberts Subject: Re: Changes to varobj.c Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 16:40:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <18493.58735.890650.879225@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <18493.58735.890650.879225@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200805291154.23776.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00751.txt.bz2 On Thursday 29 May 2008 03:06:23 Nick Roberts wrote: > > I apologise if I missed it, but I never saw a patch for the change below. I think you've missed it. The patch was posted here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gdb.patches/40822 and the version I've checked in has no changes relative to the one I've posted. Would you like to CC-d on all MI patches? > I can see a stale comment before varobj_update: > > NOTE: This function may delete the caller's varobj. If it > returns TYPE_CHANGED,... > > (varobj_update no longer returns TYPE_CHANGED) You are right. On the other hand, why do delete varobj when its type changes, or in other words, why value_of_root uses varobj_create? I think I'll just stop it making do so, together with the other planned change of making -var-create of floating varobj not fail when the expression cannot be parsed. > If you want a second pair of eyes, I'm more likely to peer review patches than > changes that have already been comitted There are MI patches I'm fairly confident in, and there are patches where a second pair of eye is appreciated. This one falls in the latter category, and that's why I've posted it quite some time ago. I can CC you for all future MI patches where comments are desired, or use [MI] prefix in emails, or something else that will make sure you see them. - Volodya