[PATCH] MI: -var-update bug

[Nick Roberts]

 > 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.
 
 > 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?


-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob