[RFC] varobj deletion after the binary has changed
Denis PILAT
denis.pilat@st.com
Thu Feb 1 09:49:00 GMT 2007
Nick Roberts wrote:
> > /* sanity check: have we been passed a pointer? */
> > if (changelist == NULL)
> > - return -1;
> > + return WRONG_PARAM;
> >
> > /* Only root variables can be updated... */
> > if (!is_root_p (*varp))
> > /* Not a root var */
> > - return -1;
> > + return WRONG_PARAM;
> > +
> > + if (!(*varp)->root->is_valid)
> > + return INVALID;
>
> OK I hadn't noticed the distinction between WRONG_PARAM and INVALID. I think
> it would be better to throw an error in the case of WRONG_PARAM, otherwise
> changes to leaf values may go unnoticed. But this is a separate change.
>
Yes it is, and the bigger is this patch the less it has chance to be
approved.
> I've not checked the test but I think the English could be improved and
> different names used:
>
Oh really?? I though my froggy English was the best.
Anyway thanks for your comments, I'll take them into account once you've
tested the test and once Daniel gives me a feedback about the C part of
the patch.
--
Denis
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list