Re: MI: frozen variable objects

[Greg Watson <g.watson@computer.org>]

On Nov 17, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 08:09:12AM -0700, Greg Watson wrote:
>> I agree that gdb should be where the actual check for value change is
>> done. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still don't understand
>> the reason for requiring frozen values to be implemented in gdb. Is
>> it just to allow your GUI to issue a single '-var-update *' each time
>> the debugger suspends? In other words, you're implementing additional
>> functionality in gdb to support this operation for the GUI.
>
> That's one reason.  The other is that -var-list-children --all-values
> shouldn't read it either.  Yes, a GUI could avoid that operation too;
> but offering them when they're dangerous to use seems very unwise.
>
> Isn't all of varobj an additional functionality to support GUI
> operations?

Yes, definitely.  But the operative word is 'support', not 'provide'.  
However, you are in the best place to know what your GUI needs gdb to  
do. I just wanted to better understand that, not hinder what you're  
proposing.

Cheers,

Greg