RE: MI varobj artificial fields

["Marc Khouzam" <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com>]

> Right now, when you're in C++ program and ask for children of a varobj
> that has structure type, you don't the the fields. Instead, you get
> "public", "private" and "protected" as chil dren.
> [...] 
> So, I suggest to allow MI to optionally suppress those artificial fields.
> Comments?

I also think it is a good idea.
I assume you mean for the private/public children to not be created at all?

That will be also good because children's name are now crowded with those
intermediate levels e.g., f.public.bar.private.x instead of f.bar.x

As you say, this would be optional, so as to keep things backwards compatible,
right?

> Should the access be an attribute of the each children, instead of
> being children themselves?

That seems good too.
But I'm wondering if someone debugging has use of that knowledge?
Isn't the visibility of fields only important up to compile time?


BTW, Andre had brought this up a little while back:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-04/msg00004.html


Marc