From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28401 invoked by alias); 22 May 2007 18:14:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 28151 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2007 18:14:18 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 May 2007 18:14:10 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HqYq8-0004jf-8x for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 22 May 2007 20:12:08 +0200 Received: from 73-198.umostel.ru ([82.179.73.198]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 20:12:08 +0200 Received: from ghost by 73-198.umostel.ru with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 20:12:08 +0200 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: Understanding GDB frames Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <4652AC74.9050100@tensilica.com> <20070522163616.GB25392@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.2 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/msg00114.txt.bz2 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. What problem are we solving in this thread? The issue that prompted "-var-list --locals" is that we don't reliably track local variables as we go through lexical blocks, and we have no mechanism to create varobj in a particular lexical scope. It seems some other problem is being discussed, but I'm not sure which one is that. - Volodya