Which MI behavior is correct ?

[Nick Roberts]

 >  > Aren't the variables associated with a particular frame ID? I thought
 >  > we'd decided that it was the right thing to take them out of scope.
 > 
 > This seems to be an answer to my question. The behavior has changed
 > probably since somewhere around 6.3. Now, variable objects are associated
 > with the frame, not with the function. As you can see in gdb 6.3 case
 > ( NATIVE.log ), variables "var1" and "var2" were successfully reused,
 > when new frame was allocated after hitting the breakpoint second time.
 > In 6.5+ (XTENSA.log), we have to recreate variable objects every time
 > we have a new frame because the old variables are out of scope.

As I said last time, I get the gdb 6.3 behaviour with FSF GDB 6.5.  In fact
I can't see how GDB can take the variables out of scope when the stack
address and code address are the same.

 > Correct ?
 > 
 > How about efficiency ? What if we have to create hundreds of variable
 > objects at every breakpoint hit ?
 > 
 > We kept staying with GNU gdb 5.2.1 for too long. So it looks like
 > we might have missed this important change, which is already in the
 > past for the majority of GNU gdb users.

I still think you're barking up the wrong tree.  Can't you test a stock
GDB 6.5 somewhere to see which behaviour you get?  If it has changed can
you identify when it did from the ChangeLog?

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