From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7419 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2003 17:05:28 -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 7412 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 17:05:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 17:05:27 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 190lg0-0008MP-00; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 11:05:28 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 190lfw-0007kw-00; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 12:05:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:05:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file Message-ID: <20030402170524.GA29748@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <20030402164231.GB26981@nevyn.them.org> <3E8B17C2.4090209@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E8B17C2.4090209@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:02:58PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>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. > > The original change broke assembler backtraces for at least xstormy16 > and cygwin. Right, thanks. If we want this to work - which is explicitly a backtrace into the entry file - then we should probably just kill the test. If it causes a problem somewhere, we can deal with it, but I don't expect it will. Just my two cents. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer