Re: [RFC] Move the frame zero PC check earlier

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:17:54 -0700
> 
> Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:
> >> Nobody has written us saying they want to choose whether GDB treats a
> >> zero return address as indicating the end of the stack.  Rather, many
> >> users have written us complaining that GDB displays extra frames at
> >> the end of well-formed, non-corrupt stacks.  And over the course of
> >> the what seems like dozens of embedded GDB ports I've debugged since
> >> 1997, I've come across the same behavior many times myself.
> >
> > If we're sure that zero return address actually signals the end of the
> > stack, then indeed we should not print the extra frame.  I'm not
> > arguing with that.  But that's defenitely 
> 
> You've said a few times that you agree GDB should support this
> convention where it is followed.  Dan's patch accomplishes that, but
> in a way you don't like.  Do you have a suggestion on how it should be
> done?  Dan reluctantly suggested a gdbarch flag; what do you think of
> that?

I actually think that something like that is the way to go.  It's
closely related to what Dan wrote about in:

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2006-05/msg00109.html

and I'd like to have a go at implementing option #2 in that mail.
Unfortunately I'm leaving for a a four-week trip tomorrow.  I won't be
able to read my mail for most of the time between now and june 17.

Mark