Re: [PATCH] keep-variable command

[Andrew STUBBS <andrew dot stubbs at st dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> For one thing, why is this a command at all?  If we support keeping
> convenience variables across symbol file reloads, then why not do it by
> default for all convenience variables?  I doubt having them disappear
> has ever been considered a feature.

If it doesn't find a type for the variable it gives a message and sets 
the value to void. This would be irritating with a large number of 
variables you no longer care about. Otherwise I would agree with you.

Perhaps instead of the message the value could somehow be shown as 
'<type lost>', in which case it wouldn't matter so much. I was 
considering the possibility of keeping the value around on the off 
chance the type has come back the next time the variable is accessed.

> Alternatively, we could add code to duplicate the types recursively
> onto a convenience variable obstack.  GDB doesn't have much of a notion
> of "type compatibility".  It might not work 100% right for things like
> C++ operator overloading, but for that we'd need to do type merging
> anyway.

I have no idea what you just said, but if it avoids type fixup problems 
then that would be a good thing all round. Is it worth whatever effort 
it would take though? Is it instead of textual type remembering or 
instead of replacing the type at all?

Andrew