Community
Participate
Working Groups
Currently C++ classes are presented using the private, public, protected tree type of indirection. This often obscures the data requiring that you dig down one extra level in order to find what you are after (if you are not aware of its "protection". There should be a label decoration for these three attributes and the image used to decorate the class members appropriately. (or put the information in the details pane) Then the tree could be collapsed without loosing any of this information but opening up the possiblity for easier data exploration.
PR was not targeted to any particular release. Changing target milestone to 2.1
Moving the target milestone to 3.0.
Deferred.
Reassigning to the pool.
*** Bug 150470 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 69876 [details] Proposed fix This simple change removes access qualifier nodes from the variable tree and replaces them with their children. Mikhail, please review and apply.
Sergey, the patch simply removes the access qualifier nodes. The request is to add a preference that allows users to choose the presentation of C++ classes.
(In reply to comment #7) > Sergey, the patch simply removes the access qualifier nodes. The request is to > add a preference that allows users to choose the presentation of C++ classes. I for one wouldn't miss the access qualifier nodes...
(In reply to comment #8) I don't really care about it either, but removing it means the documentation change for all gdb based implementations. It seems like IBM has been running automatic UI tests recently, they may be affected too.
(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > I don't really care about it either, but removing it means the documentation > change for all gdb based implementations. It seems like IBM has been running > automatic UI tests recently, they may be affected too. Not sure that should be the criteria driving the feature going forward. I don't remember seeing the access protection nodes when I used gdb from the command line. That probably means I didn't care about them and went straight to the data. I think this is one aspect that really sticks out as a negative in the CDT debug experience, and always has. Saying that I guess we should have raised a bug about when I first ran into it years ago.
Although the bug called for label decorations related to access type, I feel strongly that access type has no value for debugging. Distinguishing instance and static variables would be nice, but this is a completely separate issue. This bug is more than three years old. We shouldn't allow it to see another birthday.
RC3 is approaching quickly. Please apply the patch before it's too late.
O.K. If I don't hear anything else by tomorrow. I'll take this.
Taking it.
I have applied the patch. Thanks, Sergey! We still don't have label decorations for the variables to show thier protection so I've cloned this bug as 191353 to take care of that.
Thanks a lot, Doug.
