Re: variable objects and registers

Nick Roberts
2006-12-21T07:57:25Z

> > gdb_block_vars only gets called if gdb_get_blocks finds a new block which
> > then finds any variabes local to it. That way new variable objects can be
> > added (and old ones deleted if a block has disappeared) while keeping
> > the variable objects which are still in scope. I think we should implement
> > these functions in MI (perhaps Apple already have).
>
> Again, I think we need more automated approach. Frontend should have a
> single command that:
>
> 1. Reports which local variables are really dead now
> 2. Creates and reports variable object for new locals
> 3. Reports which varobjs are out of scope

We don't seem to be finding much agreement, except that what I have described
does 2 and 3, and I don't really understand the difference between 1 and 3
When would a variable belong to just one of those two groups?

> For example:
>
> -var-update --locals
> ^done,varobjs=[{name="v1",in_scope="false"....}{"name="v2",in_scope="true"....}]
> created=[{name="v3"....],
> gone-forever=[{name="v0"...}]
>
>
> Apple creates varobjs for all variables in all blocks in a function, and use
> "in_scope" to track their scope. That might be good approach too. IIRC,
> you've posted a patch to consider block boundaries when computing
> "in_scope"? That's exactly what's needed for this approach to work.

Yes, I'm fairly sure that's what the above functions from Insight do. That
wouldn't be a coincidence either because ChangeLog records show that Jim Ingham
worked on Insight while at Cygnus.

--
Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob