This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] valprint.c / *-valprint.c: Don't lose `embedded_offset'
On Thursday 07 October 2010 20:25:07, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > I think we should just get rid of val_print entirely, and only have
> > value_print, passing around values. If that is not efficient enough
> > (too much copying or something), we can change struct value to make it
> > efficient.
> > What do you think of that?
> Should be possible. Actually, I did go one step further, because it
> occured to me that I might as well add an assertion to val_print that
> valaddr is in fact always equal to value->contents. See patch below
> that applies on top of yesterday's. I don't know why that didn't occur
> to me sooner. :-) This passes regression testing as well.
> So, the steps I guess would be:
> - apply yesterday's and this patch.
> - add an assertion to val_print forbidding a NULL struct value, and
> fix all callers to make sure to construct a value. Not sure how
> many there are, might not be that many. I now that "info reg" is
> one case.
Just FYI, found out that it made my life easier to do this step as well.
I also added a bunch of "valaddr == value->contents" assertions throughout
all of *-valprint.c. There weren't that many cases that needed fixing.
> - get rid of valaddr and address from all the val_print methods,
> getting at the contents of the passed in value instead. It's also
> nice to get rid of the `address' parameter, because not all values
> actually have a notion of value. Currently, passing around an
> address is an abstraction violation.
> - investigate whether passing an offset around is cool, or whether
> we need something like a new value type that provides a view into
> another value, and pass that around instead?