Community
Participate
Working Groups
When I step into jdk code, I can't evaluate variables. eclipse says that the selected stack frame is not associated with a project.
If the code opened in the java editor is not part of the workspace, evaluation cannot be performed. For example, if you build with one JDK and run with another, you may step into "external source" (i.e. source for the runtime JDK that is not on the project build path). Is this the case?
I checked, and indeed the jdk I ran and compiled with were not the same. I fixed it, but I could still not evaluate. this time I got a different message: var cannot be resolved (where var is the variable I tried to evaluate).
Can you provide the specific example that you are having problems with (or re- create a simple example)? It would help.
its very easy to reproduce (on my machine). for example, if I do new Vector(5); and step into it, once I am inside Vector ctor, I can't evaluate initialCapacity. (can't be resolved).
This is because the library is not compiled with debug attributes - and thus we cannot resolve argument names. This will also be the case for local variables. We can only resolve member variables in the case that debug attributes are not present.
Marking as "wont-fix". Without debug attributes, we are not aware of local variables, and cannot do the proper resolution. (CC'ing Luc to make sure he agrees).
I am not certain, but I am pretty sure that when I worked with JBuilder, I could debug into the JDK code (with evaluation etc). this suggests that it might be possible. do you have a suggestion for a workaround? (do you know if sun provide a 'debug jdk'?
None that I know of. Luc, do you know of any work arounds?
I confirm that if the debug attributs don't contains information about the local variable, we cannot performed evaluation which used these local variable, there is no way to retrieve the value of these variables. The only JDK I know which contains debug attributs is J9. A workaround is to recompile the JDK with the debug attributs (I think there was a discution about that on the newsgroup in the beginning of last year)
*** Bug 384697 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***