From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9621 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2006 16:45:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 9612 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2006 16:45:10 -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; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:45:08 +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 k3IGiPhn005096; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.201.22.240] (unknown [17.201.22.240]) by relay7.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 797F9105; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:44:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20060418161654.GA15524@nevyn.them.org> References: <20060418161654.GA15524@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <5D8F9F25-7995-4D7A-9550-D176FEEEBD07@apple.com> Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Ingham Subject: Re: MI: performance of getting stack arguments Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:15:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) 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: 2006-04/txt/msg00251.txt.bz2 On Apr 18, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Probably only some of these are visible; you could just do the visible > ones? Or, eventually, you could do what Xcode does and get stack IDs > from GDB, and assume that arguments haven't changed on step in. I > find > that a bit shady though, given how likely it is that their "apparent" > values will change. > The way we do it, we only show the function names in the stack display, and the arguments & locals of the bottom-most frame in a detail view. If the user wants to see the args/locals for another frame, she can click on it, and we fetch the values afresh. So we always present the correct values. Nothing shady about this at all. It would be more complex if you were presenting the arguments at all times, but I think that would end up being visually very noisy. Anyway, we've never had anybody request this. Jim