From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21206 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2007 21:32:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 21197 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Feb 2007 21:32:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:32:46 +0000 Received: from dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.95] helo=caradoc.them.org) by nevyn.them.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HKLYR-0001TG-Po; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:32:43 -0500 Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HKLYR-0004gn-Ij; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:32:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch RFC] Re: Notes on a frame_unwind_address_in_block problem Message-ID: <20070222213243.GA18009@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200701031137.l03Bb0rT031898@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070103161257.GA14162@nevyn.them.org> <200701032027.l03KRv4h000275@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070103203007.GA23392@nevyn.them.org> <200701032158.l03LwPeq026191@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070103220223.GK17935@nevyn.them.org> <200701032223.l03MN8u0001386@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070103222853.GA26905@nevyn.them.org> <20070220123852.GA10630@caradoc.them.org> <200702222127.l1MLRpfW003517@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200702222127.l1MLRpfW003517@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00284.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:27:51PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Sorry that I didn't have the time to review this earlier. This still > contains the check to catch recursion in frame_unwind_find_by_frame(), > but that code really shouldn't be necessary now, so I'd prefer it if > you removed it since it is quite ugly. Fine by me - I'll just discard the frame-unwind.c part when I commit it then. It was only useful during testing but I don't imagine it will catch much afterwards. Thanks. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery