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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 09:05:11AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > 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.
> 
> OK that shows I've misunderstood.  I thought it was looking for a frame
> to associate with it.

If a varobj is associated with a particular frame, and that frame
leaves the stack, I think we should report in_scope="false".  I'm
thinking that we should always report in_scope="false" after that
point... even if another frame that happens to have the same frame
ID appears later.

There seem to be a bunch of different ways a varobj can associate
with a frame; I guess we don't need to stop varobjs that have
use_current_frame or no valid_block?

>  > 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?
> 
> What value is a variable object that is permanently out of scope?

Just in_scope="false".

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery