From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 13:17:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030403131734.GN18138@cygbert.vinschen.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3E8B1178.6050605@redhat.com>
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 11:36:08AM -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:
>
> > +
> > + /* If the architecture has a custom FRAME_CHAIN_VALID, call it
> now. */
> > + if (FRAME_CHAIN_VALID_P ())
> > + return FRAME_CHAIN_VALID (fp, fi);
>
> to before this:
>
> + /* If we're already inside the entry function for the main objfile,
> then it
> + isn't valid. */
> + if (inside_entry_func (get_frame_pc (fi)))
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* If we're inside the entry file, it isn't valid. */
> + /* NOTE/drow 2002-12-25: should there be a way to disable this check? It
> + assumes a single small entry file, and the way some debug readers
> (e.g.
> + dbxread) figure out which object is the entry file is somewhat
> hokey. */
> + if (inside_entry_file (frame_pc_unwind (fi)))
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* If we want backtraces to stop at main, and we're inside main, then it
> + isn't valid. */
> + if (!backtrace_below_main && inside_main_func (get_frame_pc (fi)))
> + return 0;
>
> That more closely resembles the original behavior.
I think that's pretty much ok. Old targets in need of one of these functions
can still call it from (deprecated_)frame_chain_valid().
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Developer
Red Hat, Inc.
mailto:vinschen@redhat.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-03 13:17 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 [this message]
2003-04-05 13:57 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-10 11:12 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-02 16:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
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=20030403131734.GN18138@cygbert.vinschen.de \
--to=vinschen@redhat.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