Re: [RFA/RFC] Tweak for a gdb.mi test.

Michael Snyder
2002-05-08T02:03:57Z

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 06:09:11PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> >
> > I'm gonna ask for a second pair of eyes, since I don't know MI
> > very well.
> >
> > What this is -- the test is examining the stack, but it is
> > assuming that main is the last frame. My change allows for
> > one extra frame below main (eg. for '_start').
> >
> > OK to check in?
>
> Before you check this in, I would prefer to have a policy decision
> in place about whether we should show that frame or not. The relevant
> macro is FRAME_CHAIN_VALID; I believe we should universally (or almost
> universally) change this to stop at main. I think that's
> func_frame_chain_valid but don't trust my memory.
>
> Some ports (HP/UX comes to mind) do wacky things in this macro/method.
> I'm not sure what they accomplish or whether they are really necessary.
> Most default to either file_ or func_, and we should standardize that
> unless there is a good reason not to.

I don't think we can do that, Daniel -- that would force us to change
numerous existing target ports. Retroactive requirements are not
generally a good idea. AFAICT, we're stuck with the fact that this
has not been standardized in the past. I would guess that there are
just as many targets that display the _start frame as don't.