Re: Which MI behavior is correct ?

[Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>]

 > PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:
 > ====================
 > 
 > When we hit the breakpoint inside f11() second time:
 > 
 > In case of 6.3 we have :
 > 
 > 228^done,changelist=[{name="var3",in_scope="true",type_changed="false"}]
 > (gdb)
 > 229^done,changelist=[{name="var4",in_scope="true",type_changed="false"}]
 > (gdb)
 > 230^done,value="3"
 > (gdb)
 > 231^done,value="2"
 > (gdb)
 > 
 > In in case of 6.5+ we have :
 > 
 > 228^done,changelist=[{name="var3",in_scope="false"}]
 > (gdb)
 > 229^done,changelist=[{name="var4",in_scope="false"}]
 > (gdb)
 > 230^done,value="2"
 > (gdb)
 > 231^done,value="1"
 > (gdb)
 > 
 > So "var3" and "var4" are out of scope.
 > 
 > Our GUI front-end relies on the 6.3-like behavior, which is consistent with
 > what we had in our previous releases based on GNU gdb 5.2.1.
 > 
 > QUESTIONS
 > =========
 > 
 > 1) Is 6.5(+)-style behavior incorrect ?

That's a loaded question.  Your comparing apples and pears.  For a true
comparison you should compare GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (6.5) (if possible)
with GNU gdb 6.5 Xtensa Tools.

The former behaviour is correct, and that's what I get with FSF GDB 6.6

I think there is something wrong with your implementation of GDB, or
something nonstansard about f11().

 >    If it is correct:
 > 
 >     - Are we supposed to recreate variables each time we enter the 
 > function ?
 >     - Is this efficient ?

Well the variables themselves are reallocated from the stack, so there's
a chance that they're not the same variables.  At the moment, however
GDB assumes that they are the same and you don't have to recreate them.

 > 2) Where can I find a good documentation describing these aspects of GDB 
 > MI ?

The info manual has a section called GDB/MI.


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