From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16482 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2003 01:42:14 -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 16475 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2003 01:42:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2003 01:42:12 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18V1gL-0005NK-00 for ; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 21:42:37 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18Uznp-0003Qn-00 for ; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 20:42:13 -0500 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 01:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Mostly kill FRAME_CHAIN_VALID, add user knob Message-ID: <20030105014213.GH28756@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20021226191541.GA8483@nevyn.them.org> <3E149438.3040900@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E149438.3040900@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 07:34:16PM +0000, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Pretty gross, neh? Well, file vs. func is merely a question of whether we > >stop at main or not, so I added "set backtrace-below-main" in order to let > >the user choose. Generic vs. not is a question of dummy frames, and the > >generic versions work with non-generic dummy frames, so there's no reason > >for that distinction earlier. It won't harm those three m68k targets (if > >they still work) to use a more comprehensive frame_chain_valid. And the > >five more specific ones up above can be retained, since they are only > >_additional_ checks. I'm not entirely convinced that the Interix one is > >necessary but I left it alone. > > > >So, after this patch we have FRAME_CHAIN_VALID as a predicated function > >that > >only five architectures define; everything else just uses the new > >frame_chain_valid () function, which is a more general version of > >generic_func_frame_chain_valid. > > > >I'm more confident I got the texinfo right this time :) I tested the patch > >and the new functionality on i386-linux and arm-elf, to make sure I got the > >details of FRAME_CHAIN_VALID_P () right. > > > >I'll look to commit this in January, if no one has any comments. Andrew, > >would you rather this went in frame.c? Since a purpose of that file seems > >to be moving things from blockframe.c to it... > > FYI, > > Much of this is superseeded by the frame overhaul - in particular the > introduction of frame_id_unwind(). The new code doesn't even call frame > chain valid! > > Perhaphs wait for the attached [wip] to be committed and then tweak that > to match your proposed policy (we can then just deprecate > FRAME_CHAIN_VALID_P :-). However, making the change in parallel > wouldn't hurt. > > Looking at my WIP, I'll need to tweak the code segment: > > + prev_frame->pc = frame_pc_unwind (next_frame); > + if (prev_frame->pc == 0) > + /* The allocated PREV_FRAME will be reclaimed when the frame > + obstack is next purged. */ > + return NULL; > + prev_frame->type = frame_type_from_pc (prev_frame->pc); > > so that it checks for where the PC resides and abort accordingly. > > The attached is WIP since I still need to see it working once :-) [Small wonder if you haven't pushed the call to FRAME_CHAIN_VALID somewhere... that's the same sort of thing that confuses me about all of your frame changes...] I've chosen to commit it instead, since your WIP isn't ready, and since you understand better than I do how it'll fit into the New Order. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer