From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9832 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2002 18:17:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9792 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 18:17:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 18:17:09 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1773D39; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D94A0A4.4010001@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:17:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI questions from eclipse.org References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00480.txt.bz2 > * Variable notification >> - assignment: Doing a -var-assign follow by a >> -var-update does not show any variables been change. >> Is this the behaviour? > > > Yes. (Didn't I get back to you on this already? I thought I had.) Any, the > way varobj works, it saves a copy of GDB's internal representation for a > variable. When one updates the root (-var-update), it computes a new > "value" and compares against the old one. > > When you assign a new value to a variable (and it succeeds), this new > "value" is saved and used for subsequent comparisons (of whether anything > has changed). This contrasts to how registers work, but the register stuff > is wrong, IMO. :-) (This happens because MI doesn't modify its "value" for > the register like varobj does.) > > >> - And on a more complex note, doing -data-write-memory >> to some memory and the memory was a variable object >> should -var-update notice this? > > > Yes. In HEAD sources it certainly does. [Aside: In mi2, this will trigger > an event telling you that something has changed. Unfortunately, we cannot > tell you WHAT changed. Only that the state of the target has changed. This > is necessary because there are some really goofy systems out there, like > those with memory-mapped registers.] Yes. The upper bound on the performance is the same as single step. Andrew