The test case wasn't included:

Now, it is.

-- Maxim

Maxim Grigoriev wrote:
> Hello GDB experts,
>
> I wonder if somebody can help me to understand which
> GDB MI behavior is supposed to be correct.
>
> I've included the test case, the MI commands used, and
> the outputs from two debuggers: the native FC5 Linux-X86
>
>    GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (6.3.0.0-1.134.fc5rh)
>
> and ours
>
>    GNU gdb 6.5 Xtensa Tools 7.1.0-development
>
> Our GNU gdb 6.5 is consistent with the top of the FSF tree.
>
>
> 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 ?
>
>   If it is correct:
>
>    - Are we supposed to recreate variables each time we enter the 
> function ?
>    - Is this efficient ?
>
> 2) Where can I find a good documentation describing these aspects of 
> GDB MI ?
>   All docs I found on the Internet weren't quite helpful.
>
> Thanks in advance for any of your help.
>
> -- Maxim
>
>
>
>
>
>