Re: [RFA] varobj: call CHECK_TYPEDEF

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:36:02PM -0700, Keith Seitz wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 16:49, David Carlton wrote: 
> > I've just gone and looked over the thread and at Keith's patch; I
> > think the idea is sound, but the implementation isn't.  The comments
> > at the top of get_type say that it's supposed to skip past typedefs,
> > so calling CHECK_TYPEDEF certainly seems legitimate.  But
> > CHECK_TYPEDEF calls check_typedef, which already goes through chains
> > of typedefs, so you can get rid of the loop in get_type.
> 
> Yup, I think you are correct. I'm sure that I was just being laz^Whasty.
> :-)

David's analysis sounds right to me.  I'll look over the actual code
tomorrow, really I will...

> I'll note that there is still one failure in the testsuite.
> gdb.mi/mi-var-display.exp: create local variable weird (aka insight's
> c_variable 6.22) fails because the output type is now considered "struct
> _struct_decl" instead of it's typedef name "weird".
> 
> I believe it is a bug below varobj, though. In varobj_create,
> gdb_evaluate_expression is called. It returns the struct value for the
> expression. It returns a type that looks like:
> 
> var->value->type->main_type->code = TYPE_CODE_PTR
> var->value->type->main_type->target_type->main_type->code =
> TYPE_CODE_STRUCT, tag_name="_struct_decl"
> 
> I think that this is wrong, and it should be "TYPE_CODE_TYPEDEF" and
> "weird_struct"...
> 
> Or am I yet again being laz^Whasty? :-)
> Keith

I am 99.99% certain that this test is a compiler problem, not a GDB
problem, and that I fixed it in GCC a few months ago.  My memory's
going though :P

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer