[MI] lvalues and variable_editable
Daniel Jacobowitz
drow@false.org
Mon Jul 9 12:05:00 GMT 2007
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 05:51:42PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> (Me)
>
> > Anyway let me submit a more complete patch, in due course, for consideration
> > after the release.
>
> This is what I have in mind. There are no regressions, at least with MI (I
> can't test Insight). If there's still time, this could go in before the
> branch. I also have a (much smaller) change, that I've submitted earlier, for
> after the release which adds the editable field to the output of -var-create
> and -var-list-children, .
Thanks for doing this. I have two questions for you.
- Why do variable_editable_p and varobj_value_is_changeable_p have to
be different? That is, do we need varobj_value_is_changeable_p to be
true for any non-lvals. If not, we can eliminate one of them.
- Why do you need to re-evaluate the expression? I think we can use
var->value, and report anything with a NULL value as non-editable.
No point editing it if we can't save it somewhere.
Also, I think varobj_value_is_changeable_p was missing from your
changelog (if I've correctly understood where one hunk of that patch
goes), and the patch had "variable_editable_pv" in it.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list