From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25087 invoked by alias); 19 May 2007 03:27:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 25074 invoked by uid 22791); 19 May 2007 03:27:24 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 May 2007 03:27:16 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (149.62.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.62.149]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27D63D8940; Sat, 19 May 2007 15:27:12 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1F3BE8F92B; Sat, 19 May 2007 15:27:09 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17998.28300.327133.525945@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 03:27:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Maxim Grigoriev , gdb@sourceware.org, Pete MacLiesh , Vinay Pandit , Shaiju P , Marc Gauthier Subject: Re: Which MI behavior is correct ? In-Reply-To: <20070519030245.GA941@caradoc.them.org> References: <464E4C4D.9010709@hq.tensilica.com> <17998.24266.849023.454806@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070519030245.GA941@caradoc.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.1.50.251 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-05/txt/msg00085.txt.bz2 > > > - 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