Re: [PATCH 2/2] Remove parameter valaddr from la_val_print

["Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>]

Yao Qi wrote:

> If we go to the direction you suggested, val_print routines shouldn't
> assume that VAL contents are already fetched.  Before we do printing,
> optimized-out checking, or available checking, we should make sure VAL
> is not lazy.  Nowadays, we can't fetch the value partially, because
> 'lazy' is a bool attribute, we either fetched all contents or haven't
> fetch all contents.

Right.  But if we ever went to actually create sub-value objects, then
we might be able to take advantage of only fetching the contents for
those sub-objects are actually printed.  In any case, I still think
this new patch is preferable over calling value_fetch_lazy all the
time ...

> How is the patch below?  I don't write the ChangeLog entry yet.
> Regression tested on x86_64-linux.

Looks good to me.

> --- a/gdb/extension.c
> +++ b/gdb/extension.c
> @@ -478,9 +478,9 @@ free_ext_lang_type_printers (struct ext_lang_type_print=
> ers *printers)
>    xfree (printers);
>  }
>  =0C
> -/* Try to pretty-print a value of type TYPE located at VALADDR
> -   + EMBEDDED_OFFSET, which came from the inferior at address ADDRESS
> -   + EMBEDDED_OFFSET, onto stdio stream STREAM according to OPTIONS.
> +/* Try to pretty-print a value of type TYPE located at VAL's contents
> +   buffer + EMBEDDED_OFFSET, which came from the inferior at address
> +   ADDRESS + EMBEDDED_OFFSET, onto stdio stream STREAM according to OPTION=
> S.
>     VAL is the whole object that came from ADDRESS.  VALADDR must point to
>     the head of VAL's contents buffer.
>     Returns non-zero if the value was successfully pretty-printed.

This changes the comment but not the actual implementation, this seems
to be an oversight?

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com