Re: Variable objects: references formatting

[Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs dot msu dot su>]

On Thursday 04 May 2006 10:22, Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > > Version 1.59 has been in the repository for over a month, so how come
>  > > this patch is against 1.58?
>  >
>  > I've at least 2 other changes to that file, and corresponding patches
>  > were neither applied nor rejected, AFAICT. I'd rather not update the
>  > file yet.
>
> And I would think people on this mailing list would rather not work out
> the patch relative to current CVS in order to apply.  I know it worked in
> this case (after a shift) but it wouldn't in general.

Well, if you say patches against the previous revision of a file cause 
problems, I'll try to send patches against most current version in future.

>  > > Most importantly, however, the preamble is about
>  > > -data-evaluate-expression but AFAICS this doesn't call
>  > > c_value_of_variable.
>  >
>  > Sure it does. KDevelop uses -data-evaluate-expression to fetch values,
>  > and with this patch the value of "reference to structure" is rendered as
>  > "...", just like I'd want.
>
> I could say "Oh know it doesn't!" but, since this is not a pantomime, could
> you please give me a simple example of where it does call
> c_value_of_variable. My loose reasoning is that the variable in
> "c_value_of_variable" refers to variable object and
> -data-evaluate-expression doesn't use one.  What argument do you give it?

It looks like small typo caused a lot of confusion. I meant 
-var-evaluate-expression, not -data-evaluate-expression. Sorry for confusing 
this.

>  > > I have tested the output of -data-evaluate-expression on pointers to
>  > > typedeffed structures and found that with the latter I get a
>  > > {}-enclosed list of members with gcc 3.2 and {...} with gcc 4.1.  More
>  > > generally, I have found that gcc 4.1 treats typedefs differently,
>  > > which leads to errors with variable objects.
>  >
>  > How *pointers* to typedeffed structures are relevant to this patch? Now,
>  > maybe we need to call 'check_typedef' in one more place -- after
>  > stripping reference, to make sure typedefs to structures are also
>  > rendered as "...".
>  >
>  > Is that what you're saying? And what errors do you see with gcc 4.1?
>
> No, I just didn't appreciate the difference between pointers and references
> in GDB.  The discrepancy I "found" was due to me mistyping.  However I do
> see a problem with gcc 4.1 and variable objects where GDB keeps telling me:
>
>    Child of parent whose type does not allow children
>
> when it didn't when my program was compiled with gcc 3.2.

Again, maybe you can provide specific case where this error is produced? If it 
affect real-world cases we'd  better fix it soon.

- Volodya