Re: [patch/rfc] FRAME_FP() -> get_frame_base()

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>]

On Nov 19,  2:55pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> The mechanics of the change are obvious.  The new function's name, 
> though, is not.  The following names come to mind:
> 
> get_frame_base()
> Hints that the address is some how associated with the frame's base. 
> Hopefully this conveys the notion that the address shouldn't change 
> throughout the lifetime of the frame.
> 
> get_frame_address()
> Like get_frame_base() but without that strong association with the 
> frame's base.  It does fit in well with the gdbarch methods 
> frame_locals_address() and frame_args_address() though.
> 
> get_frame_fp()
> Would associate the address with the `frame-pointer'.   I don't like 
> this one since, in the past, FP has been too closely associated to a 
> real register, and the register definitly changes across the lifetime of 
> the frame.
> 
> Preferences?

I think get_frame_base() is a good choice.  I like get_frame_address()
too, but if using "base" somehow helps us to remember that this
address remains constant, then that's a good thing.

[...]
> - (I guess) re-vamp the PPC so that get_frame_base() is constant through 
> out the lifetime of a frame.

Yes, I guess so.  I had to think about this a while though -- the current
placement of ->frame makes a lot of sense.

Kevin