Re: Variable objects laziness

Vladimir Prus
2006-11-29T09:09:30Z

On Wednesday 29 November 2006 11:55, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > With the new changes to varobj.c, -var-assign doesn't work for
> > > references.
> >
> > This is embarrassing. However, it also validates my claim that we should
> > a single invariant-preserving function to assign new value. This crash
> > happens, for all appearances, because varobj_set_value directly sets new
> > value.
> >
> > I've checked in the attached, that fixes the crash, and causes no
> > regressions.
>
> I find this way works well but it's not how things are done here. You need
> to post the patch first and get approval from an appropriate maintainer
> _before_ committing it (I don't think your change counts as an obvious
> fix). See the MAINTAINERS file. I'm assuming that you have Write After
> Approval (clearly you have write access) but AFAICS you've not added your
> name to MAINTAINERS.

I apologise if I've bypassed the procedures. I this case, however, this was a
rather serious regression caused by immediately preceding patch of mine.

>
> Anyway the patch does indeed seem to do what you say. Thanks.
>
> > Attached (references.diff) is the patch that makes gdb sense the changes
> > in reference values, and eliminates the address from the output. Any
> > opinions?
>
> Doesn't appear to be attached but I'm only reading the archives.

I'll post it separately in a second -- with a testcase.

> If you
> reply to an e-mail from me on gdb-patches could you please include me as
> I'm not subscribed to the mailing list (I'd rather receive two than none
> anyway). I think that's general accepted protocol.

Alas, I'm also not subscribed and reading the list via gmane.org and my NNTP
reader does not provide a way to reply both to the list and to the author.
Is there any way you can try gmane.org?

- Volodya