Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

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