From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12035 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2006 18:55:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 12023 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2006 18:55:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:55:15 +0000 Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GkmO6-00045Q-OM for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:55:02 +0100 Received: from 73-198.umostel.ru ([82.179.73.198]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:55:02 +0100 Received: from ghost by 73-198.umostel.ru with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:55:02 +0100 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: MI: frozen variable objects Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:55:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <200611161547.46997.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <1163690698.3219.199.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.2 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-11/txt/msg00145.txt.bz2 Frederic RISS wrote: > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 06:58 -0700, Greg Watson wrote: >> I don't really understand the motivation for putting this kind of >> functionality into gdb. Any GUI that is more than just a front-end >> for gdb will most likely have an internal data structure representing >> the value of the variable, and can retain or manage access to the >> value if required. It seems to me that adding functionality like this >> to gdb just adds to bloat when it is really a GUI function anyway. > > The interesting part seems to be the one that hasn't been submited yet > about GDB auto-freezing some values due to archtectural requirements. > The debugger has architectural knowledge and it shouldn't be necessary > to duplicate it in the GUI. > I agree with your general point though. Maybe the functionality > shouldn't be in the debugger, but the information should be available to > the GUI... through varobj properties maybe? Of course this means that > the GUIs have to known about and respect this information. Since GUI typically rely to -var-update to read and report which values have changed, it's best to change -var-update not to implicitly read read-sensitive values. Doing this in GUI requires that GUI never issues -var-update for a variable object that contains read-sensitive children. That would be quite a drastic change in GUI architecture. With frozen variable object as implemented in the patch, GUI need only localized straight-forward changes. - Volodya