Re: [RFC] varobj deletion after the binary has changed

[Denis PILAT <denis.pilat@st.com>]

Nick Roberts wrote:
>  >    /* sanity check: have we been passed a pointer? */
>  >    if (changelist == NULL)
>  > -    return -1;
>  > +    return WRONG_PARAM;
>  >  
>  >    /*  Only root variables can be updated... */
>  >    if (!is_root_p (*varp))
>  >      /* Not a root var */
>  > -    return -1;
>  > +    return WRONG_PARAM;
>  > +
>  > +  if (!(*varp)->root->is_valid)
>  > +    return INVALID;
>
> OK I hadn't noticed the distinction between WRONG_PARAM and INVALID.  I think
> it would be better to throw an error in the case of WRONG_PARAM, otherwise
> changes to leaf values may go unnoticed.  But this is a separate change.
>   
Yes it is, and the bigger is this patch the less it has chance to be 
approved.
> I've not checked the test but I think the English could be improved and
> different names used:
>   
Oh really?? I though my froggy English was the best.
Anyway thanks for your comments, I'll take them into account once you've 
tested the test and once Daniel gives me a feedback about the C part of 
the patch.

-- 
Denis