Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
To: cagney@gnu.org
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove zero PC check from blockframe.c:inside_main_func()
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:22:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200312141822.hBEIMFZ7014165@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3FDBAD57.7060906@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:22:47 -0500)

   Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:22:47 -0500
   From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>

   > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/frame.c,v
   > retrieving revision 1.153
   > diff -u -p -r1.153 frame.c
   > --- frame.c 10 Dec 2003 17:40:42 -0000 1.153
   > +++ frame.c 13 Dec 2003 21:47:43 -0000
   > @@ -1732,6 +1732,7 @@ struct frame_info *
   >  get_prev_frame (struct frame_info *this_frame)
   >  {
   >    struct frame_info *prev_frame;
   > +  CORE_ADDR pc;
   >  
   >    if (frame_debug)
   >      {
   > @@ -1961,7 +1962,8 @@ get_prev_frame (struct frame_info *this_
   >       because (well ignoring the PPC) a dummy frame can be located
   >       using THIS_FRAME's frame ID.  */
   >  
   > -  if (frame_pc_unwind (this_frame) == 0)
   > +  pc = frame_pc_unwind (this_frame);
   > +  if (this_frame->level >= 0 && pc == 0)
   >      {
   >        /* The allocated PREV_FRAME will be reclaimed when the frame
   >  	 obstack is next purged.

   Can it be deleted?

I think so.  I tested i386-unknown-freebsd4.7, i386-pc-solaris2.9,
x86_64-unknown-freebsd5.2 and alpha-unknown-freenbsd5.2, and things
didn't change.

   This would likely affect the initial call sequence made to the unwinder 
   - frame_pc_unwind may not be called first (?).  But I also think that 
   the reason for insisting on an explicit pc unwind may have also been 
   removed - the new code is written more robustly anyway.

I think I agree.  So shall I remove the code?

Mark


  reply	other threads:[~2003-12-14 18:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-12-13 15:09 Mark Kettenis
2003-12-13 19:02 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-13 22:07   ` Mark Kettenis
2003-12-14  0:23     ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-14 18:22       ` Mark Kettenis [this message]
2003-12-31 19:58         ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-21 21:20 ` Mark Kettenis

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=200312141822.hBEIMFZ7014165@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org \
    --to=kettenis@chello.nl \
    --cc=cagney@gnu.org \
    --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