From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18736 invoked by alias); 3 May 2006 06:03:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 18724 invoked by uid 22791); 3 May 2006 06:03:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su (HELO zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su) (158.250.17.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 May 2006 06:03:02 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with spam-scanned (Exim 4.50) id 1FbARu-0004XT-Fj for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 03 May 2006 10:02:59 +0400 Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su ([158.250.17.23]) by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1FbARK-0004Qx-Q2; Wed, 03 May 2006 10:02:22 +0400 From: Vladimir Prus To: Jim Ingham Subject: Re: -var-update and address changes Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 06:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 Cc: Nick Roberts , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200605021740.40193.ghost@cs.msu.su> <1B177ECC-2AD9-4476-AF44-D91F4268E70E@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <1B177ECC-2AD9-4476-AF44-D91F4268E70E@apple.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200605031002.21910.ghost@cs.msu.su> Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 02 May 2006 21:22, Jim Ingham wrote: > Shouldn't the call to var->root->lang->value_of_root down at the > bottom of value_of_root take care of fetching the new value? Well, it fetches the new value, I believe. > You > don't want to discard the old varobj unless you have to, because if > the varobj represents a structure or pointer to a structure and the > user has fetched any children, or changed the format, or whatever, > you will lose that state. Ah, that's right. In fact much of complexity in current KDevelop code is maintaining open/close state of items, so would be nice if gdb handled this. Do you suggest that we don't create new varobj unless value change, or that we carry over all settings from the old one to the new? > > Also, I must be missing something this morning, but I can't see any > difference between your two examples. Ah, sorry, they are the same indeed. In the second example, the type of 'i' inside 'foo' function should be 'int'. In that case, gdb does not notice that name 'i' now refers to different variable. - Volodya