From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19116 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2003 15:31:31 -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 19104 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2003 15:31:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2003 15:31:31 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31FVUQ14512 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:31:30 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31FVTQ22438 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:31:29 -0500 Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (vpn50-16.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.16]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h31FVS514061 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 07:31:28 -0800 Received: (from corinna@localhost) by cygbert.vinschen.de (8.11.6/8.9.3/Linux sendmail 8.9.3) id h31FVPe12996 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 17:31:25 +0200 Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 15:31:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file Message-ID: <20030401153125.GY18138@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030327113330.GH23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3E84E8B4.7000502@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E84E8B4.7000502@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 Andrew, On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 07:28:36PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Index: blockframe.c > >=================================================================== > >RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/blockframe.c,v > > For "blockframe.c", please leave it as is. I'm already in enough > trouble for breaking old targets so I'd prefer to leave that part > untouched. It would only affect out-of-date targets anyway. The > up-to-date targets don't rely on that function. I've checked in the frame.c patch but still, I don't understand this decision. So called out-of-date targets can easily add the inside_entry_file() call to their frame_chain_valid() implementation so removing this call from blockframe.c does not necessarily break them. Keeping this call in blockframe.c on the other hand breaks some targets for which this call is plainly wrong. So the logic would imply to remove the call in favour of *all* targets able to run correctly. I've checked this patch (including the patch to i386_frame_chain_valid) on four targets, xstormy16-elf, i686-pc-cygwin, i686-pc-linux and arm-elf. The first two are running fine then, the latter two are totally unaffected. Corinna P.S.: I'll submit the i386_frame_chain_valid patch separately. -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Developer Red Hat, Inc. mailto:vinschen@redhat.com