This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Variable objects laziness
- From: Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs dot msu dot su>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:27:05 +0300
- Subject: Re: Variable objects laziness
- References: <200611141643.25053.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <ejjv1m$i87$1@sea.gmane.org> <20275.192.87.1.22.1163760030.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> <200611171344.54155.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20061117142230.GA29258@nevyn.them.org> <ejkiq6$n5e$1@sea.gmane.org> <ejkqqg$q0t$1@sea.gmane.org> <20061117181246.GB6133@nevyn.them.org> <ejmksl$d85$1@sea.gmane.org> <20061128165758.GB21834@nevyn.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 12:48:05PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>> >> + rather value_contents, will take care of this.
>> >> + It might throw, but unlike var-update for -var-assign
>> >> + there's just one variable we're working it, so we don't
>> >> + need to catch the exception here. */
>> >
>> > Wait, what? gdb_value_assign will never throw. value_contents
>> > might, but gdb_value_assign will catch it.
>>
>> Yep, confused gdb_value_assign with value_assign.
>>
>> Updated patch attached. I also attach the delta to the previous patch.
>
> This version is OK now (for HEAD only). Thanks for your patience.
> The frozen varobj patch had some further discussion; I'll have to
> get back to it, but I'm afraid not today. Poke me if I haven't done it
> in a few days, please.
*POKE*.
- Volodya