From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19564 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2002 17:18:54 -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 19552 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2002 17:18:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO branoic) (66.19.120.59) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jun 2002 17:18:50 -0000 Received: from drow by branoic with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17EZ0A-0002MC-00 for ; Sun, 02 Jun 2002 13:18:46 -0400 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 10:18:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Switch to generic_func_frame_chain_valid() Message-ID: <20020602171844.GA9027@branoic.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3CF948A6.5020500@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CF948A6.5020500@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 06:20:22PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > This finishes off (I think) the FRAME_CHAIN_VALID debate. It sets it to > generic_func_frame_chain_valid(). That function being tweaked to handle > both generic dummy frame and the old style frame cases. > > I'll commit it in a few days. > > Andrew After this goes in, can we start switching existing targets? That seemed to be the real point of debate - file_frame_chain_valid versus func_frame_chain_valid. With the addition of a 'set' variable for people who prefer the file_frame_chain_valid behavior, I don't see any reason not to. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer