From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19307 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2002 17:21:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19299 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 17:21:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 17:21:12 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8JH3ti22755 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:03:55 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8JHLAx20694; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:21:10 -0400 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (IDENT:4CibDUwqNTcRv1Xcn9W8ocgdFBMKUcFN@romulus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.251]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8JHL9C17899; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:21:09 -0700 Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g8JHL7i21485; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:21:07 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:21:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020919172106.ZM21484@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "[patch/rfc/rfa*] Only compare against dummy frame tos when saved" (Sep 17, 8:55pm) References: <3D87CEF5.3000302@ges.redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc/rfa*] Only compare against dummy frame tos when saved MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00493.txt.bz2 On Sep 17, 8:55pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > This change does, however, have the potential to break break every > target that sets save_dummy_frame_tos(). Going through the list of > targets (and treating any with a frame_chain() like the above as ok): > > cris-tdep.c: ok > ia64-tdep.c: ok > mcore-tdep.c: *** I suspect it doesn't but should > mn10300-tdep.c: *** I suspect it doesn't but should > rs6000-tdep.c: ok > s390-tdep.c: ok > xstormy16-tdep.c: ok (I think). > > I think, for the two *** cases, the code can be tweaked to have > frame_chain() return frame->frame. > > Thoughts? Ok for the targets with maintainers? I think this change will be okay for ia64 so long as the following FIXME comment in ia64-tdep.c is fixed: /* FIXME: This doesn't belong here! Instead, SAVE_DUMMY_FRAME_TOS needs to be defined to call generic_save_dummy_frame_tos(). But at the time of this writing, SAVE_DUMMY_FRAME_TOS wasn't gdbarch'd, so I chose to put this call here instead of using the old mechanisms. Once SAVE_DUMMY_FRAME_TOS is gdbarch'd, all we need to do is add the line set_gdbarch_save_dummy_frame_tos (gdbarch, generic_save_dummy_frame_tos); to ia64_gdbarch_init() and remove the line below. */ At the moment, ia64 depends upon ->top being set, but your change will disable the appropriate test because ia64-tdep.c doesn't (correctly) set the SAVE_DUMMY_FRAME_TOS method. I'll try to find a moment or two to give it a try... Kevin