From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22700 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2003 15:38:14 -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 22689 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2003 15:38:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2003 15:38:14 -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 h31FcDQ17058 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:38:14 -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 h31FcDQ22580 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:38:13 -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 h31FcB514495 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 07:38:12 -0800 Received: (from corinna@localhost) by cygbert.vinschen.de (8.11.6/8.9.3/Linux sendmail 8.9.3) id h31Fc6m13030 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 17:38:06 +0200 Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 15:38:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file Message-ID: <20030401153806.GZ18138@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> <20030401153125.GY18138@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030401153125.GY18138@cygbert.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 05:31:25PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > 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 It would only affect out-of-date targets anyway.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 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ frame_chain() > 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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i386_frame_chain() Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Developer Red Hat, Inc. mailto:vinschen@redhat.com