From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21634 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2003 18:23:02 -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 21627 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 18:23:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 18:23:02 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 190mt5-0008WV-00; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 12:23:03 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 190mt1-0002cW-00; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 13:22:59 -0500 Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file Message-ID: <20030402182259.GA9276@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <20030402170524.GA29748@nevyn.them.org> <3E8B29E4.2050601@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E8B29E4.2050601@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 01:20:20PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >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. > > Keep in mind that the frame_chain_valid() function has been > end-of-life'ed, and the original change has been superseeded by the > get_prev_frame(). Given that, I think the best thing to do is to > restore the old behavior for older targets - hence put that test first. That will cause many targets to start backtracing past main, which I believe we agreed was undesirable. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer