From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10368 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2006 20:04:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 10360 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Dec 2006 20:04:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:04:36 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GslxS-0006dC-7E; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:04:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] MI: -var-update bug Message-ID: <20061208200434.GA25405@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17785.48689.501272.349814@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20061208194304.GA24699@nevyn.them.org> <17785.49735.481567.393065@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17785.49735.481567.393065@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00131.txt.bz2 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