From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26389 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2002 18:13:08 -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 26381 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2002 18:13:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO branoic) (66.19.120.39) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2002 18:13:06 -0000 Received: from drow by branoic with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17EwK8-0007Uz-00; Mon, 03 Jun 2002 14:12:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 11:13:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Switch to generic_func_frame_chain_valid() Message-ID: <20020603181255.GA28813@branoic.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3CF948A6.5020500@cygnus.com> <20020602171844.GA9027@branoic.them.org> <3CFB6F53.50205@cygnus.com> <3CFBAC77.5B3AADD3@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CFBAC77.5B3AADD3@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00042.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:50:47AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > For natives (hmm, need a new name - UNIX like targets?) I think > > definitly and asap. For more embedded targets, yes, with set - do any > > targets have custom frame-chain functions? > > Yes, many. Did you mean "custom frame-chain-valid functions"? > Yes, I believe there are some of those too. Assuming Andrew meant custom f-c-valid functions, then there are several; all of them just add additional restrictions on the PC instead of taking away. So I will update them to call the generic function after they perform their additional checks, instead of duplicating. Sound good? -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer