From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 16:39:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030402163914.GA26981@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030402092741.GA26480@cygbert.vinschen.de>
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 11:27:41AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 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 So called out-of-date targets can easily add the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.
By "suspicious" I mean that I don't see why it would be necessary.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-02 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-27 11:33 Corinna Vinschen
2003-03-29 0:28 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-01 15:31 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-01 15:38 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-01 15:39 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-01 16:18 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-01 16:35 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-01 17:03 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-01 17:30 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-01 19:58 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-04-02 9:27 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-02 16:36 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-02 16:42 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-04-02 17:03 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-02 17:05 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-04-02 18:20 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-02 18:23 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-04-02 20:11 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-02 20:38 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-04-03 13:17 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-05 13:57 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-10 11:12 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-02 16:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030402163914.GA26981@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox