This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Understanding GDB frames
But does this explain why xt-gdb didn't detect the
variable objects coming back
into scope when an i386 gdb did?
Yes, it does. Thanks to Ross, who already explained it in the previous email on this thread.
Actually I think we've discussed this behavior before
and done nothing about it.
I suggest we improve gdb documentation in the way that, when
we don't have time to describe things properly, we at
least put a reference to a corresponding GDB-mailing-list
discussion.
-- Maxim
Nick Roberts wrote:
Maxim Grigoriev writes:
> > It's worth pointing out that the 'PC' in a frame ID isn't the current
> > PC within the function. It's always the PC of the function's entry
> > point, so that stepping within a function doesn't cause the frame ID
> > to change. Usually it's a PC value returned by 'frame_func_unwind',
> > which takes care of calling get_pc_function_start for you.
>
> We've been using a function return address instead of
> the PC of the function's entry, and it works just fine.
But does this explain why xt-gdb didn't detect the variable objects coming back
into scope when an i386 gdb did?
> The good part of our approach is it allowed to expose some
> problems with MI variable objects :-)
Actually I think we've discussed this behaviour before and done nothing about
it.