From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11057 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2002 17:31:49 -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 11040 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2002 17:31:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.int.act-europe.fr) (209.53.17.163) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jun 2002 17:31:44 -0000 Received: by takamaka.int.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id D861189FBA; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:31:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] block_innermost_frame tweak Message-ID: <20020621103135.C31883@gnat.com> References: <20020620131440.M397@gnat.com> <3D126D8A.9020908@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3D126D8A.9020908@cygnus.com>; from ac131313@cygnus.com on Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:04:26PM -0400 X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00429.txt.bz2 > Is there a better name? As you note, it isn't a valid PC (it may not > even point into an instruction!). Further, it is isn't the address of > the instruction ``calling'' the ``frame''. Last time this came up > address_in_block() was used - frame_address_in_block()? I have no problem renaming it to frame_address_in_block, provided we all agree on the name. > Just BTW frame_in_dummy() isn't an indication of an innermost frame. > There can easily be other frames (and even dummy frames) more inner most > than that dummy frame. Right. I noticed this when I reworked my changes, but thanks. -- Joel