From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10779 invoked by alias); 19 May 2007 03:03:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 10766 invoked by uid 22791); 19 May 2007 03:03:02 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 May 2007 03:02:56 +0000 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30284B26D; Fri, 18 May 2007 22:02:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F4F4B262; Fri, 18 May 2007 22:02:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HpFDR-0000Hw-WD; Fri, 18 May 2007 23:02:46 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 03:03:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: Maxim Grigoriev , gdb@sourceware.org, Pete MacLiesh , Vinay Pandit , Shaiju P , Marc Gauthier Subject: Re: Which MI behavior is correct ? Message-ID: <20070519030245.GA941@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Maxim Grigoriev , gdb@sourceware.org, Pete MacLiesh , Vinay Pandit , Shaiju P , Marc Gauthier References: <464E4C4D.9010709@hq.tensilica.com> <17998.24266.849023.454806@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17998.24266.849023.454806@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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/msg00084.txt.bz2 On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 02:19:54PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > 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. 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. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery