From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23367 invoked by alias); 2 May 2002 15:48:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23306 invoked from network); 2 May 2002 15:48:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 May 2002 15:48:05 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g42Fm0N21089; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:48:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 08:48:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200205021548.g42Fm0N21089@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix problem with watchpoint test in gdb.base/commands.exp Cc: fnf@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, msnyder@redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > ... so there may not necessarily be a frame change. Right. > However, if the frame has gone (or is being destroyed) the variable > is out of scope. The problem is with the recursive case, where there are several frames which map to the same line numbers, and several instances of the variable. gdb could have bugs where it creates a watchpoint for one of these frames, but then deletes it when an inferior frame exits. With this patch, the test suite wouldn't detect such a bug. Michael C