From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14424 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 17:56:58 -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 14396 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 17:56:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 17:56:58 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18laLx-0006pO-00; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 13:58:01 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18lYSl-0002e8-00; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:56:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: GDB Patches Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Add a sentinel frame Message-ID: <20030219175654.GA10010@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , GDB Patches References: <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> <20030219171700.GA8736@nevyn.them.org> <3E53C416.30809@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E53C416.30809@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00425.txt.bz2 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