From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>, Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa:symtab] deprecate inside_entry_func
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 17:31:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1031107173135.ZM17860@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> "Re: [rfa:symtab] deprecate inside_entry_func" (Oct 31, 9:27pm)
On Oct 31, 9:27pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > Kevin, you previously wrote:
> >
> >> >> I'd like to avoid re-introducing a dependency on inside_entry_func() as
> >> >> that places garish requirements on the object file readers :-(
> >
> >> >
> >> > I agree that object file readers should not attempt to track of
> >> > the bounds of the start function. However, given an arbitrary
> >> > address, it's not unreasonable to ask the symtab machinery to attempt
> >> > to figure out the function bounds. And, in fact, this is just what
> >> > find_pc_partial_function() does.
> >
> >
> > Yes, the reason I wrote this was to note that there are other ways of
> > implementing inside_entry_func() which wouldn't place garish
> > requirements on the object file readers.
>
> Then I'm puzzled as to why you are objecting to me deprecating this
> existing garish hack? Remember, I also wrote:
>
> > + /* NOTE: cagney/2003-10-31: A very simple test, such as
> > + get_frame_func == entry_point should be sufficient for
> > + identifying a pc in the entry function. Does anyone know why it
> > + wasn't sufficient and hence, why the very convoluted
> > + "deprecated_inside_entry_func" is needed. */
What I'm suggesting is that you implement inside_entry_func() using
"get_frame_func == entry_point". What's so garish about that?
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-11-07 17:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-11-01 0:07 Andrew Cagney
2003-11-01 0:37 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-11-01 0:46 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-01 0:55 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-11-01 2:27 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-07 17:31 ` Kevin Buettner [this message]
2003-11-07 21:25 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-01 0:42 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-11-01 2:37 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-09 0:13 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-11-09 2:40 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-09 3:50 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-11-21 19:53 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-21 19:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-11-21 20:11 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-11-21 20:46 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-21 20:48 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-11-21 20:55 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-21 21:04 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-11-21 21:24 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-11-21 21:54 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-11-21 22:40 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-11-22 0:37 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-22 0:41 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-11-21 20:07 ` David Carlton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1031107173135.ZM17860@localhost.localdomain \
--to=kevinb@redhat.com \
--cc=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox