This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [ob] unbreak MI
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 13:32:54 Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > > Probably:
> > > >
> > > > if (!gdb_type)
> > > > ui_out_field_string (uiout, "value", "");
> > > > else if (mi_print_value_p (gdb_type, print_values))
> > > > ui_out_field_string (uiout, "value", varobj_get_value (var));
> > > >
> > > > is the right logic?
> > >
> > > It's probably the right logic, but it seems to cure the symptom rather
> > > than the cause.
>
> Looking again, I see it's not the right logic. GDB will print a value=""
> field even for "--no-values" when gdb_type is NULL.
>
> >...
> > The original code, in fact, was in error too, because of this:
> >
> > return (TYPE_CODE (type) != TYPE_CODE_ARRAY
> > && TYPE_CODE (type) != TYPE_CODE_STRUCT
> > && TYPE_CODE (type) != TYPE_CODE_UNION);
> >
> > This will crash if 'type' is NULL. Testsuite fails to detect this because
> > presently type is NULL only for C++ pseudo-fields ('public'/'private') and
> > the code above is only executed for --simple-values.
>
> I never use, and never wanted, "-var-list-children --simple-values".
And? You keep on making this argument in various context, and I find it wrong. It does
not matter if you, or I, make use of a feature -- the code that can segfault on a
usage documented in gdb manual should either be removed, or fixed.
> > Does this clarify things?
>
> Yes, thanks. I think the patch below should cover all cases.
As far as I'm concerned, it's fine.
- Volodya