From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23888 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2003 16:42:39 -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 23881 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 16:42:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 16:42:39 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 190lJv-0008KE-00; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 10:42:39 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 190lJo-00073p-00; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 11:42:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 16:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file Message-ID: <20030402164231.GB26981@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <20030402092741.GA26480@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3E8B1178.6050605@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E8B1178.6050605@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 11:36:08AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>> 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? > > I'm beginning to think that reverting some of the original change: > > RFC: Mostly kill FRAME_CHAIN_VALID, add user knob > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00683.html > > might be the best option. What about moving this: I just want to make sure you realize that doing so would defeat the point of the patch, which was to have the other quoted checks below apply to all targets. I'm trying to make the target-specific hooks less powerful, not more. But I guess this conversation's gone on so long that I've lost track of what why this is causing a problem. So maybe I'm missing something important. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer