Re: [patch/rfc] Add a sentinel frame

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 08:32:32AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> So I think it is one of these tests going awall:
> 
>   if (next_frame->level >= 0
>       && !backtrace_below_main
>       && inside_main_func (get_frame_pc (next_frame)))
>     /* Don't unwind past main(), bug always unwind the sentinel frame.
>        Note, this is done _before_ the frame has been marked as
>        previously unwound.  That way if the user later decides to
>        allow unwinds past main(), that just happens.  */
>     return NULL;
> 
>   /* If we're inside the entry file, it isn't valid.  */
>   /* NOTE: drow/2002-12-25: should there be a way to disable this
>      check?  It assumes a single small entry file, and the way some
>      debug readers (e.g.  dbxread) figure out which object is the
>      entry file is somewhat hokey.  */
>   /* NOTE: cagney/2003-01-10: If there is a way of disabling this test
>      then it should probably be moved to before the ->prev_p test,
>      above.  */
>   if (inside_entry_file (get_frame_pc (next_frame)))
>       return NULL;
> 
> The second looks worrying (the dummy frame breakpoint lives in the entry 
> file ...).  Perhaphs something like:
> 
> if (dummy_frame_p (get_frame_pc (next_frame) != NULL
>     && inside_entry_file (get_frame_pc (next_frame))
>   return NULL;

Hrm, shouldn't we have already detected the dummy frame at this point? 
That's what happens on i386 IIRC...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer