Re: [patch/rfc] Add a sentinel frame

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 12:51:18PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >>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.
> 
> I'm refering to frame_chain_valid(), a small part of which you changed. 
>  The useful bits (your changes) were copied to the rewritten 
> get_prev_frame.  When frame_chain_valid() is deleted, that duplication 
> will go away.  To see what's wrong with frame_chain_valid() see 
> legacy_get_prev_frame.

I'm slow.  Could you explain the problem?  There's a comment about
things being deduced there which is no longer true, and a comment about
leaves of main that I can't make heads nor tails of but I don't think
it applies.

I still don't see why you copied the code instead of using
frame_chain_valid, or why you copied only some of it (not including the
dummy frame checks which I think would solve this).

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer