From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29266 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2008 13:50:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 29255 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2008 13:50:58 -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; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:50:38 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JhPpr-0003wO-2s for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:50:35 +0000 Received: from 78.158.192.230 ([78.158.192.230]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:50:35 +0000 Received: from ghost by 78.158.192.230 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:50:35 +0000 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [gdb 6.7.1/6.8] does '-var-create - @' work or not? Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <47F4D97B.8060400@op.pl> <20080403133250.GA19115@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.5 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 03:19:55PM +0200, Bogdan Slusarczyk wrote: >> I thought that created var objects using '-var-create - @' can be updated >> in another frame. But it doesn't work, -var-evaluate-expression returns >> wrong value. On the other hand 'print' returns right values. Or maybe I >> did something wrong? My sequence: -var-create at the begining, and next >> -var-update and -var-evaluate-expression in another frames. > > Please add some additional details: what version of GDB is this, > and what were the exact commands and output in the MI session? Right, in general MI bug report should include the *exact* sequence of commands. In this case, this looks very much like the bug that Nick has already reported. Nick has also posted a proposed patch, which I haven't reviewed yet, though. - Volodya