Re: Patch to add rtti_type member to gdb.Value

[Richard Ward <richard.j.ward1@googlemail.com>]

Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Ward <richard.j.ward1@googlemail.com> writes:
> 
> Richard> This patch adds value gdb.Value.rtti_type to go along side
> Richard> gdb.Value.type. the type represents the type of the value determined
> Richard> by rtti. Luckily it turns out that the info is already available in
> Richard> gdb's value struct, where it has already been properly determined, so
> Richard> there is no need to call any real gdb code. This just exposes
> Richard> it.
> 
> Is that always the case?  I ask because other code, like the code
> implementing "set print object on", uses value_rtti_type and/or
> value_rtti_target_type.
> 
> The patch also has some non-GNU-formatted code; no big deal, just a
> bunch of nits to clean up.
> 
> Richard> It is very similar to valpy_get_type (without what appears to
> Richard> be an unnecessary Py_INCREF).
> 
> The code:
> 
>   value_object *obj = (value_object *) self;
>   if (!obj->type)
>     {
>       obj->type = type_to_type_object (value_type (obj->value));
>       if (!obj->type)
> 	{
> 	  obj->type = Py_None;
> 	  Py_INCREF (obj->type);
> 	}
>     }
>   Py_INCREF (obj->type);
>   return obj->type;
> 
> The first Py_INCREF is there because obj->type must be a new reference
> to an object.  That lets us pair with the decre at object destruction.
> It looks weird, being on Py_None, but I think that is still correct.
> 
> The second Py_INCREF is so that we always return a new reference to our
> caller.
> 
> So, I think they are both needed.  But if not, I definitely want to know
> about it, and why :-)
> 
> Tom
I'll look at the other points later when I have time, but In this case 
if Py_None is used it will be incremented twice before being handed back 
to the caller.

Richard.