On Sunday 05 July 2009 Jan Kratochvil wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:09:39 +0200, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > On Thursday 02 July 2009 Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > > Is it OK to check it in, Vladimir?  The patch would go in unchanged:
> > > 	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-05/msg00547.html
> > 
> > Is this cleanup-only patch?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > I am a bit concerned that it appears to increase code size,
> 
> all_root_varobjs fully replaced the varobj_list function which just could not
> be deleted as it was still used by varobj_invalidate.  varobj_invalidate was
> rewritten in a later patch where varobj_list could be finally dropped:
> 	[patch 8/8] Types GC [varobj]
> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-05/msg00551.html

Is that patch awaiting review, or some newer version is forthcoming?

> > > The `floating' lockup will get fixed by a later patch using this new
> > > all_root_varobjs function.   A testcase for it was in a now-obsolete patch:
> > > 	[patch] Fix gdb.mi hang on floating VAROBJs
> > > 	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-05/msg00433.html
> > > This patch itself still does not fix it.
> > 
> > IIUC, the varobj_invalidate problem can be fixed with a small patch below.
> 
> Yes, such patch works.
> 
> Sending also a code style fixup on top of your fix to make the code more safe
> preventing such errors in the future.
> 
> Please provide a ChangeLog entry to your fix, check it in 

It now checked in, as attached.

> and approve the
> fixup + a testcase below.

This is OK, thanks.

> The all_root_varobjs patch / VEC rewrite I will re-send afterwards.

OK.

Thanks,
Volodya