From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 863 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2002 21:38:20 -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 848 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2002 21:38:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2002 21:38:18 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAKLEOP15026 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:14:24 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAKLcGD32125; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:38:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-31.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.31]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAKLcFw04446; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:38:15 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gAKLc9s26350; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:38:09 -0700 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:38:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1021120213809.ZM26349@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "[patch/rfc] FRAME_FP() -> get_frame_base()" (Nov 19, 2:55pm) References: <3DDA9741.4050001@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] FRAME_FP() -> get_frame_base() MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00509.txt.bz2 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