Re: Changes to varobj.c

[Vladimir Prus <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>]

On Thursday 29 May 2008 03:06:23 Nick Roberts wrote:
> 
> I apologise if I missed it, but I never saw a patch for the change below.

I think you've missed it. The patch was posted here:

	http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gdb.patches/40822

and the version I've checked in has no changes relative to the one
I've posted.

Would you like to CC-d on all MI patches?

> I can see a stale comment before varobj_update:
> 
>    NOTE: This function may delete the caller's varobj. If it
>    returns TYPE_CHANGED,...
> 
> (varobj_update no longer returns TYPE_CHANGED)

You are right. On the other hand, why do delete varobj when its
type changes, or in other words, why value_of_root uses varobj_create? I think
I'll just stop it making do so, together with the other planned change of
making -var-create of floating varobj not fail when the expression cannot be
parsed.

> If you want a second pair of eyes, I'm more likely to peer review patches than
> changes that have already been comitted

There are MI patches I'm fairly confident in, and there are patches where
a second pair of eye is appreciated. This one falls in the latter category,
and that's why I've posted it quite some time ago. I can CC you for all future
MI patches where comments are desired, or use [MI] prefix in emails, or something
else that will make sure you see them.

- Volodya