From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5176 invoked by alias); 22 May 2007 18:33:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 5104 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2007 18:32:59 -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, 22 May 2007 18:32:50 +0000 Received: from relay5.apple.com (relay5.apple.com [17.128.113.35]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA321DD165; Tue, 22 May 2007 11:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay5.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay5.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 60BEE29C003; Tue, 22 May 2007 11:32:41 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807123-a088ebb0000065b6-a8-4653374995da Received: from [17.201.22.244] (gdbrulez.apple.com [17.201.22.244]) by relay5.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 44A4030400B; Tue, 22 May 2007 11:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Marc Gauthier , Ross Morley , Nick Roberts , Maxim Grigoriev , gdb@sourceware.org, Pete MacLiesh Message-Id: <8D85CC15-F5B0-4187-92A9-81C17E631BE0@apple.com> From: Jim Ingham To: Daniel Jacobowitz In-Reply-To: <20070522163616.GB25392@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.885) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v885) Subject: Re: Understanding GDB frames Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:33:00 -0000 References: <4652AC74.9050100@tensilica.com> <20070522163616.GB25392@caradoc.them.org> 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/msg00115.txt.bz2 I don't see what the bad effect of not destroying the varobj if the frame id is identical is. You might get an errant "value changed" notification. Other than that, I can't see what you would be gaining. If we're going to do some extra work to make sure we mark variables out of scope when their frames are exited, we should get something real out of it. So far it seems the benefit is only theoretical. Jim On May 22, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 09:10:29AM -0700, Marc Gauthier wrote: >> As we discussed offline yesterday, this has performance implications >> on the GUI, which would have to recreate the varobjs every time which >> is time consuming. > > Is the performance implication the main reason? If so, I'd rather we > fix that instead. I know Nick and/or Vladimir suggested "-var-list > --locals" at one point in an earlier discussion of a related problem. > That's probably quite a lot faster, especially if we can notify the > front end when it enters a new frame. > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > CodeSourcery