This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: RE: [Patch] [MI] Out-of-scope varObjects no longer trigger a var-update change
- From: "Marc Khouzam" <marc dot khouzam at ericsson dot com>
- To: "Vladimir Prus" <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>, <gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:56:07 -0400
- Subject: RE: RE: [Patch] [MI] Out-of-scope varObjects no longer trigger a var-update change
- References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA0759C401@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <18940.53928.936676.982399@totara.tehura.co.nz> A<gtna45$mr$1@ger.gmane.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
> [mailto:gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Prus
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:54 PM
> To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: RE: [Patch] [MI] Out-of-scope varObjects no longer
> trigger a var-update change
>
> Nick Roberts wrote:
>
> > Marc Khouzam writes:
> > > Below is the session. The testcase is part of my Eclipse
> > > regression testsuite and basically looks for the content
> > > of a variable name the same thing as a previous variable,
> > > which is part of a method named the same thing as where the
> > > previous variable was. You'll understand better from the code
> > > below :-)
> >
> > OK, I see this now. The failure occurs because `public' is
> considered
> > an unchangeable field by GDB.
> >
> > > Note that the below passes after I applied my proposed patch.
> >
> > As a general principle, if a regression occurs I try to
> remove some of the
> > added logic, rather than add to it, as I find the latter
> tends to make
> > the logic more convoluted.
> >
> > The procedure, varobj_update, used to return a scalar that
> corresponded to the
> > status field of the structure. varobj_update_result. I
> don't know what the
> > advantage of returning a vector of structures is but, in
> any case, the changed
> > field of varobj_update_result appears not to be used
> outside varobj_update. I
> > would suggest a change something like below. A full patch
> would remove the
> > changed field altogether.
>
> Can you post this as unified diff? I can't read context diffs
> at all :-(
It would make it easier on me as well (for next time).
Thanks in advance.