This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: MI - Detecting change of string contents with variable objects
- From: Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs dot msu dot su>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 23:58:59 +0300
- Subject: Re: RFC: MI - Detecting change of string contents with variable objects
- References: <17798.19683.251190.740216@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <17821.25837.573239.858406@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070104205039.GH24634@nevyn.them.org>
On Thursday 04 January 2007 23:50, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 09:34:53AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > Otherwise the patch seems fine, if it tests OK, but I'm still a little
> > > nervous about it. For example, you'll call val_print on a struct
> > > or array to see if it's changed. Depending on things like "set print
> > > elements", that might not print out the whole string. This is
> > > probably a behavior change. Is it a harmless one? If it is, then
> > > should we be sharing the code with c_value_of_variable that avoids
> > > printing structs, unions, and arrays, and never mark them as changed
> > > unless their types change?
> >
> > The function val_print is already used for -var-evaluate-expression.
>
> Not in the case I was talking about. -var-evaluate-expression calls
> varobj_get_value, which calls c_value_of_variable, and will return
> "{...}" for a struct. Won't it?
>
> > AFAICS "set print elements" has no effect on variable objects,
> > perhaps because val_print is only called on the leaves but I can see
> > that using it might expose MI to the vagaries of CLI. Currently,
> > however, string changes don't get reported at all, without the user
> > changing configuration values.
>
> "set print elements" will affect the output of character pointers, but
> that's not really what I'm worried about - you're now going to print
> out most of an array or struct when comparing print_value.
>
> 1. Can always set print_value to what c_value_of_variable would return?
>
> 2. Currently I believe we will mark an array varobj as updated in
> -var-update if any of its children change.
We never mark array varobj as changed, I believe. array varobj is included
in -var-update output only if the type of the array changes, IIRC.
> I'm not sure if we'll do
> that any more after your patch, e.g. if something beyond the limit of
> "set print elements" changes. So, do you think any front end relies on
> the parent being marked updated if any of its children are? Vlad,
> any opinion?
I think the code in question is never executed for structures or arrays -- only
for "changeable" values.
- Volodya