From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16470 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2003 20:38:00 -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 16436 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 20:37:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 20:37:59 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 190nvB-0000CS-00 for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 13:29:18 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 190nv8-0007Aa-00 for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:29:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 20:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file Message-ID: <20030402192914.GA26613@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <20030402182259.GA9276@nevyn.them.org> <3E8B3939.9040108@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E8B3939.9040108@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:25:45PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >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. > > Restore the old behavior as far as frame_chain_valid() is concerned. > The main() check was moved to get_prev_frame() some time ago. You're right, I see it now. OK then. I don't care; someday it'll all go away. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer