Re: Variable objects laziness

Vladimir Prus
2006-11-17T10:45:16Z

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.

> Or is it that your new
> code no longer needs to do this comparison? If that's the case, do
> watchpoints still work?

Sorry, what watchpoint have to do with this? my_value_equal is not used to
implement watchpoints -- only var-update and -var-assign.

- Volodya