From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21938 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2006 19:49:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 21929 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Feb 2006 19:49:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:49:46 +0000 Received: from relay7.apple.com (relay7.apple.com [17.128.113.37]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k1KJn0Dw012588; Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:49:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.201.22.240] (inghji.apple.com [17.201.22.240]) by relay7.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 2B50A14D; Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:49:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20060220191205.GA23169@nevyn.them.org> References: <200602171724.03824.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20060217203120.GE30881@nevyn.them.org> <3D09ADF2-5A80-4B42-B4DE-2A2861C3A2AA@apple.com> <200602201026.15624.ghost@cs.msu.su> <01627BAA-38C7-4391-A344-54B23B5F1863@apple.com> <20060220191205.GA23169@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <4EA7A902-DC19-4E6A-B266-B9C5AB2CA40D@apple.com> Cc: Vladimir Prus , GDB List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Ingham Subject: Re: MI: type prefixes for values Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:57:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00274.txt.bz2 On Feb 20, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:58:07AM -0800, Jim Ingham wrote: >> We also added the option to return all the locals in all the blocks >> in a function. This allows you to present all the variables, and >> then mark the ones which are not currently in scope appropriately. I >> find this less confusing than having the contents of the variables >> window come and go as you step through the function. Most of our >> users seem to agree. > > Ooh... that does sound like a nice one, assuming it handles the nasty > cases like shadowing somehow. Yes, it took a little work to get this right, but it does so far as I have been able to determine (i.e. don't have any outstanding bugs on this one.) Jim > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > CodeSourcery