This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] MI: -var-update bug
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 09:05:11AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > Randomisation isn't even the issue - I think that what you've got now
> > is simply an accident, and varobjs associated with a particular frame
> > should not become valid if a similar looking frame reappears later.
>
> OK that shows I've misunderstood. I thought it was looking for a frame
> to associate with it.
If a varobj is associated with a particular frame, and that frame
leaves the stack, I think we should report in_scope="false". I'm
thinking that we should always report in_scope="false" after that
point... even if another frame that happens to have the same frame
ID appears later.
There seem to be a bunch of different ways a varobj can associate
with a frame; I guess we don't need to stop varobjs that have
use_current_frame or no valid_block?
> > Right now we never delete varobjs automatically. We could preserve
> > that, but set a flag on the varobjs indicating they're permanently out
> > of scope?
>
> What value is a variable object that is permanently out of scope?
Just in_scope="false".
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery