From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3383 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2008 18:35:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 3307 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2008 18:35:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:34:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAMIYIZZ013311; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:34:18 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mAMIYHqn007745; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:34:17 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-17.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.17]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAMIYGtR026970; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:34:17 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 07BBE378BCD; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:34:15 -0700 (MST) To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: fix address in call to val_print References: <20081122051123.GC4318@adacore.com> <20081122175354.GF4318@adacore.com> <20081122182132.GH4318@adacore.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:09:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20081122182132.GH4318@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Sat\, 22 Nov 2008 10\:21\:32 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-11/txt/msg00618.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Joel> If it depends on some functionality that's still only in the Archer Joel> repo, then let's defer that until that piece of functionaly is in Joel> the FSF repo. Yeah, the only case I know of depends on other code from the python branch which is not yet in gdb. Specifically, when pretty-printing we reconstruct a "struct value" from the arguments to val_print; in this case the address being 0 causes problems later when trying to take the address of an object -- gdb complains that it does not have an address. Joel> In the meantime, the code patch is OK to go in (unless you'd prefer Joel> to hold off on it, but I would imagine that the fewer local changes Joel> in the Archer repo, the better). Ok, I will check it in. Thanks for clarifying this. And yeah, I'm trying to flush out the various independent bug fixes and changes from the python branch. I am trying to set the stage to submit the pretty-printing feature. Tom