From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10710 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2003 09:27:49 -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 10701 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 09:27:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 09:27:47 -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 h329RkQ02380 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 04:27:46 -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 h329RkQ21903 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 04:27:46 -0500 Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (vpn50-1.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.1]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h329Ri517863 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 01:27:44 -0800 Received: (from corinna@localhost) by cygbert.vinschen.de (8.11.6/8.9.3/Linux sendmail 8.9.3) id h329Rfj26502 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:27:41 +0200 Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 09:27:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file Message-ID: <20030402092741.GA26480@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> <20030401161824.GA18138@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3E89BFE4.7020500@redhat.com> <20030401170307.GD18138@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3E89CCC9.7040908@redhat.com> <20030401195832.GA10202@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030401195832.GA10202@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 02:58:32PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 12:30:49PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > > >Oh, you wrote "Consider that approved" so I didn't thought I'd have > > >to send it again to gdb-patches. However, what about the important > > >part of my posting: > > > > Yes, just please always post changes. > > > > >>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. > > > > Per my previous comment, I'd prefer to not touch the old code at all - > > let it die. Mark, I'll note, already has i386 replacement code in waiting. > > > > The other thing to do is to ask DanielJ if he knows anything more about > > that specific case. > > Nope. It was there before I put my hands on it; it seems suspicious to > me though. What do you mean by "suspicious"? You did already comment on this in blockframe.c so I assume you had rather mixed feelings about this call. I don't see a reason not to change this. It will take some time to move all targets to the new scheme. Why should some of the not converted targets remain broken due to an obvious bug? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Developer Red Hat, Inc. mailto:vinschen@redhat.com