From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22387 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2007 12:52:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 22376 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2007 12:52:28 -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; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:52:20 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H9L8D-0000fa-Ow for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:52:09 +0100 Received: from wind.lvk.cs.msu.su ([158.250.17.9]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:52:09 +0100 Received: from ghost by wind.lvk.cs.msu.su with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:52:09 +0100 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [RFC] varobj deletion after the binary has changed Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:52:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <45B60056.6030704@st.com> <20070123124457.GA1600@nevyn.them.org> 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-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00471.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:32:22PM +0100, Denis PILAT wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We have a bug in one of our gdb target, when the binary changed while >> beeing debugged it appears that some of our varobj refers to invalid >> symbols or type. And what kind of problems does it cause, for the record? I'd expect that attempt of evaluating such expressions will result in value being "", and in_scope="false". Do you get anything worse than that? >> >> I propose a patch that delete all varobj when symbols are reloaded. May >> be there is a better place to do that but I think we must do that >> somewhere, don't you ? > > The right thing to do is probably to figure out where the > invalid references come from and fix them - probably by re-evaluating > expressions at the next -var-update. Deleting things behind the front > end's back is a bad policy. Or maybe, implement "binary changed" MI notification that can be used by the frontend as it sees fit. - Volodya