From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: Maxim Grigoriev <maxim@tensilica.com>,
gdb@sourceware.org, Pete MacLiesh <pmac@tensilica.com>,
Vinay Pandit <vinayp@tensilica.com>,
Shaiju P <shaijup@tensilica.com>,
Marc Gauthier <marc@tensilica.com>
Subject: Re: Which MI behavior is correct ?
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 03:27:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <17998.28300.327133.525945@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070519030245.GA941@caradoc.them.org>
> > > - 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.
>
> Aren't the variables associated with a particular frame ID? I thought
> we'd decided that it was the right thing to take them out of scope.
Maxim hadn't posted the test case when I replied. Even now I'm not sure what
the chain of events are. If the second instance is when f11 is called by f1,
then I agree it should be out of scope, and I think it always has been. If it
refers to the second time f11 is called from main (and the transcript seems to
suggest this, although I've not looked too carefully) then GDB still considers
this to be in scope.
--
Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-19 3:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-19 1:01 Maxim Grigoriev
2007-05-19 1:58 ` Maxim Grigoriev
2007-05-19 2:20 ` Nick Roberts
2007-05-19 3:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-05-19 3:27 ` Nick Roberts [this message]
2007-05-19 19:36 ` Maxim Grigoriev
2007-05-19 23:08 ` Nick Roberts
2007-05-21 3:43 ` Maxim Grigoriev
2007-05-25 20:51 ` Jim Blandy
2007-05-25 21:48 ` Maxim Grigoriev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=17998.28300.327133.525945@kahikatea.snap.net.nz \
--to=nickrob@snap.net.nz \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=marc@tensilica.com \
--cc=maxim@tensilica.com \
--cc=pmac@tensilica.com \
--cc=shaijup@tensilica.com \
--cc=vinayp@tensilica.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox