Re: Variable objects laziness

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-11-17T14:22:46Z

On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 01:44:53PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Friday 17 November 2006 13:40, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > Sorry, you're right!
> > > >
> > > > When you're ready, please repost. Might want to finish talking with
> > > > Nick first.
> >
> > As Nick indicated, I'm not sure whether the removal of my_value_equal is
> > ok. The whole point of my_value_equal is to check equality of values
> > without error()ing out if we can't read a value. Your replacement code
> > doesn't seem to take that possibility into account.
>
> Are you sure? The code has exactly one place where value is fetched, and it
> does that by the call to gdb_value_fetch_lazy -- that calls value_fetch_lazy
> in a try block. Any errors will be caught and cause the value to be set to
> NULL.

I think this is the key bit - my_value_equal called value_fetch_lazy,
the new code calls gdb_value_fetch_lazy.

Vlad, I noticed that the old code used coerce_array and the new one
doesn't. Is that a problem?

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery