From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30789 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2003 21:04:14 -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 30778 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 21:04:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Nov 2003 21:04:13 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1ANIRo-0000hr-Om for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:04:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:symtab] deprecate inside_entry_func Message-ID: <20031121210412.GA2627@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3FA2F940.5040102@redhat.com> <3FBE6D46.4070201@redhat.com> <20031121195949.GA794@nevyn.them.org> <3FBE79B6.2090209@redhat.com> <20031121204833.GA2356@nevyn.them.org> <3FBE7BD8.2090601@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FBE7BD8.2090601@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00448.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 03:55:52PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 03:46:46PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>> > >>>What Kevin and I have both repeatedly suggested, I think, is: > >>> - Do not deprecate inside_entry_func; fix it if you don't like the > >>> way it is implemented. Change the implementation. > >>> - Deprecate entry_func_lowpc and entry_func_highpc (there's a typo in > >>> your changelog, two lowpc's) if you really want to deprecate > >>> something. > > > >> > >>Please point me at a legitimate use of this function. > > > > > >Please read my previous response to you in this thread, in which I did > >so at length. > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-11/msg00158.html > > That's not what I'm asking. > > With the call to inside_entry_func removed, from get_prev_frame, can you > point me at any remainng _legitimate) uses of that function? The other call to it in legacy_frame_chain_valid, which wants to know the same thing? I imagine the third caller, in frv-tdep.c, is bogus and could be removed somehow. But if it's going to be left there then it seems reasonable to update it also. Conceptually the patch you just posted sees to be: - Change the implementation of inside_entry_func - Inline the new inside_entry_func into the one caller you're fond of - Add a deprecated copy of the old implementation for the other callers >From the man who is always telling us how unimportant performance is compared to clarity, I don't see the point. Also, this leaves an old implementation and a new implementation around for no visible reason. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer