Re: [PATCH 2/2] Remove parameter valaddr from la_val_print

[Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> Yao Qi wrote:
>
>> Nowadays, we pass both val and return value of
>> value_contents_for_printing (val) to la_val_print.  The latter is
>> unnecessary.  This patch removes the second parameter of la_val_print,
>> and get valaddr in each language's implementation by calling
>> value_contents_for_printing_const.  This change makes a little
>> difference, because value_contents_for_printing calls value_fetch_lazy
>> additionally, so I call value_fetch_lazy in the caller of val_print
>> if needed.
>
> Can you explain why all those value_fetch_lazy calls are needed?
> Did you add them only to keep the behavior the same as currently,
> or does printing not work correctly if they are omitted?
>

The former.  Without my change, we pass the return value of
value_contents_for_printing to val_print, like this,

         val_print (elttype, value_contents_for_printing (v0),

and, value_contents_for_printing calls value_fetch_lazy.  After my
change, we start to use value_contents_for_printing_const in val_print
of each language, because VAL passed to val_print is const, so we
need to call value_fetch_lazy explicitly in the caller of val_print.

-- 
Yao (齐尧)