From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14856 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2003 16:18:33 -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 14849 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2003 16:18:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2003 16:18:33 -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 h31GIWQ00833 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:18:32 -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 h31GIVQ23685 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:18:32 -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 h31GIT517426 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:18:30 -0800 Received: (from corinna@localhost) by cygbert.vinschen.de (8.11.6/8.9.3/Linux sendmail 8.9.3) id h31GIOm13282 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:18:24 +0200 Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 16:18:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file Message-ID: <20030401161824.GA18138@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> <3E89B2AA.5060304@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E89B2AA.5060304@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 10:39:22AM -0500, Andrew Cagney 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 It would only affect out-of-date targets anyway.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 > >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. > > You want to run arm and i386 changes past their respective maintainers. Misunderstanding? I *tested* the above changes against xstormy16-elf, i686-pc-cygwin, i686-pc-linux and arm-elf. There are no arm-elf specific changes as well as no Linux specific changes. There's a i386 patch which I've sent a few minutes ago. Corinna > Andrew > > PS: Patch? What patch are you talking about? -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Developer Red Hat, Inc. mailto:vinschen@redhat.com