From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3675 invoked by alias); 25 May 2007 21:48:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 3609 invoked by uid 22791); 25 May 2007 21:47:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from hq.tensilica.com (HELO mailapp.tensilica.com) (65.205.227.29) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 May 2007 21:47:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by mailapp.tensilica.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HrhdP-0004vo-LT; Fri, 25 May 2007 14:47:43 -0700 Received: from mailapp.tensilica.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailapp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18888-01; Fri, 25 May 2007 14:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maxim_fc5.hq.tensilica.com ([192.168.11.68]) by mailapp.tensilica.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HrhdP-0004vi-5s; Fri, 25 May 2007 14:47:43 -0700 Message-ID: <4657597E.6060501@hq.tensilica.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 21:48:00 -0000 From: Maxim Grigoriev User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070102) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy CC: Maxim Grigoriev , Nick Roberts , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb@sourceware.org, Pete MacLiesh , Vinay Pandit , Shaiju P , Marc Gauthier Subject: Re: Which MI behavior is correct ? References: <464E4C4D.9010709@hq.tensilica.com> <17998.24266.849023.454806@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070519030245.GA941@caradoc.them.org> <17998.28300.327133.525945@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <464F51B5.5040802@hq.tensilica.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00165.txt.bz2 Thanks ! I understand we're going to have to upgrade our GNU XT-GDB 6.5 to be able to use the '@' syntax. -- Maxim Jim Blandy wrote: > Maxim Grigoriev writes: > >> This seems to be an answer to my question. The behavior has changed >> probably since somewhere around 6.3. Now, variable objects are associated >> with the frame, not with the function. As you can see in gdb 6.3 case >> ( NATIVE.log ), variables "var1" and "var2" were successfully reused, >> when new frame was allocated after hitting the breakpoint second time. >> In 6.5+ (XTENSA.log), we have to recreate variable objects every time >> we have a new frame because the old variables are out of scope. >> > > Just to connect this old thread with newer conversation: > > To avoid recreating variable objects, you probably want to pass '@' as > your frame to -var-create. This makes the varobj re-parse and > re-evaluate the expression using the currently selected frame at each > update. > > Old-style varobjs that use '*' or an address as their frame should > never come back into scope once their frame is popped. If they do, > it's a fluke. > > The '@' syntax is undocumented; I posted a manual patch based on some > experimentation and reading the code: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-05/msg00397.html >