This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 03:58:44PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > This patch includes the missing files, and I redid the varobj change in
> > a pedantically different way. Thanks for catching my goof there, by
> > the way. And caught a bad argc check on -var-list-children that I
> > think you picked up from me at some point.
>
> Your change is clearly more object oriented. I don't know why varobj.c is in
> the gdb directory: it's only really used by mi-cmd-var.c. How about moving it
> into the mi directory, or even merging it with mi-cmd-var.c to form one file?
> That way all the static functions currently in varobj.c will be automatically
> accessible to the functions currently in mi-cmd-var.c.
I bet you've got only the GDB module checked out. Varobj was not
written for MI - it was written for Insight (gdb/gdbtk/).
> > How's it look? If it looks good to you, I'll check it in, and then you
> > can commit the documentation and we can work out what happened to your
> > testcase.
>
> Yes, it looks good to me. Perhaps I can test it more fully once you've
> committed it. Now that the hectic release schedule of GDB has slowed down, I
> think this is a good way to work. I'm not sure that you will agree, though.
In general, it's not my favorite approach, but it's growing on me. I
have checked in the patch now; feel free to check in the docs, since
Eli approved them. We can sort out testcases next.
BTW, if it's OK with you, I would prefer that you add new testcases
rather than modifying existing ones. Yes, the ones that are there are
slightly redundant. But changing what a test case is testing is bad
form for long-term results analysis.
> I think the behaviour should be governed by use not consistency. I don't
> really have an opinion though as I will only use:
Makes sense. I can see why displaying the type for -var-update seems
less than useful - although if it displayed dynamic type... hmmm...
well, something to think about much later.
Now that this patch is in, I believe your current gdb-mi.el will work
with CVS GDB. Is that right? If so, could you post it? I promise to
look at it promptly.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC