From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 528 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2002 10:48:16 -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 505 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 10:48:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 10:48:12 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id KAA18525; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:48:10 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma017947; Thu, 12 Dec 02 10:47:17 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17187; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:47:15 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id gBCAlFr08321; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:47:15 GMT Message-Id: <200212121047.gBCAlFr08321@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs To: ac131313@redhat.com (Andrew Cagney) cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. Subject: Re: [PATCH] Get rid of DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY in i386-tdep.c In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:55:57 EST." <20021211145557.3DF383C17@localhost.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 03:06:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00402.txt.bz2 I was looking at the DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY use in arm-tdep.c last night and I came to the conclusion that I hadn't a clue what I was supposed to do to remove it. Is all the code dead? Does it all need translating into pc_in_dummy_frame? etc, etc. Could I suggest that when we deprecate a call some documentation is added *somewhere* saying what sort of things (I accept that it might not be a trivial substitution) should be used to replace existing deprecated code. One possible place would be in gdbarch.sh, though that's constrained a bit. doc/deprecated.texinfo? something of the form ->> DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY: Replace with calls to XXX or YYY as appropriate using the new ZZZ methods for doing wibble. This would then be a key for things to look up in the manual (the new methods are documented, right?) to understand how it's all supposed to work. R.