Re: [PATCH] MI: -var-update bug

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 08:51:35AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > That reinit_frame_cache call is silly.  I've been meaning to remove it
>  > for ages.  Do you see any reason not to?
> 
> I don't understand frame.c well enough to judge yet (likewise with eval.c and
> your patch) but if you think its silly lets remove it.  Without randomisation,
> I think some of this code (in c_value_of_root) would put the variable object
> back into scope because it would find the frame id.
> 
> More generally, should we make GDB delete all variable objects if we restart
> execution or are there OSes (without randomisation) where it is still useful?

Randomisation isn't even the issue - I think that what you've got now
is simply an accident, and varobjs associated with a particular frame
should not become valid if a similar looking frame reappears later.

Right now we never delete varobjs automatically.  We could preserve
that, but set a flag on the varobjs indicating they're permanently out
of scope?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery