From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21311 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 17:17:05 -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 21296 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 17:17:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 17:17:05 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18lZjM-0006jD-00; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 13:18:08 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18lXq8-0002IX-00; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:17:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: GDB Patches Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Add a sentinel frame Message-ID: <20030219171700.GA8736@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , GDB Patches References: <3E305670.3020700@redhat.com> <3E48378E.6090007@suse.cz> <3E492953.8010001@redhat.com> <3E52173B.1030800@suse.cz> <3E538770.6070209@redhat.com> <20030219140441.GA20537@nevyn.them.org> <3E53B61C.2050807@redhat.com> <20030219165623.GA7961@nevyn.them.org> <3E53BBCB.2010003@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E53BBCB.2010003@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00418.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 12:15:55PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > if (DEPRECATED_USE_GENERIC_DUMMY_FRAMES > > && DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY (get_frame_pc (fi), 0, 0)) > > return 1; > > >Oh I didn't realize the contents of frame_chain_valid had ended up > >repeated in get_prev_frame, I've been looking at the wrong function. > >That's why I didn't understand you. Should the check above exist in > >get_prev_frame also? > > When you first committed that stuff, I warned you that would happen :-) > The above test handled differently. Hey, you can't blame me for this bit. I didn't add that check for DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY, it was already there in generic_frame_chain_valid. > >[Why does this logic need to be in more than one place?] > > Because frame_chain_valid() is only there to keep legacy code working. > Need to rename it, need to deprecate the rest of those old methods. That doesn't answer my question though. I don't understand why you have to move the logic out of frame_chain_valid instead of _using_ it from get_prev_frame. Does it not have the interface you want? Does it do something grubby in frames that it shouldn't? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer