From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25458 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2006 20:23:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 25439 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Dec 2006 20:23:10 -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 20:23:03 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GsmFI-0006pK-U2; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:23:00 -0500 Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] MI: -var-update bug Message-ID: <20061208202300.GA26172@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> <20061208200434.GA25405@nevyn.them.org> <17785.50551.255052.307043@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17785.50551.255052.307043@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/msg00135.txt.bz2 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