From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15831 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2007 14:59:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 15823 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Oct 2007 14:59:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:59:21 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1220981F3; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:59:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F04981F2; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:59:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IfzVO-0005Hr-M1; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:59:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis , Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [rfc] Unwind the ARM CPSR Message-ID: <20071011145918.GA19988@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis , Jim Blandy References: <20071011145137.GA18336@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071011145137.GA18336@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-10/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:51:37AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > So why shouldn't the argument be the CURRENT (i.e. THIS) frame > instead? Then we can call frame_register (CURRENT) instead of > frame_unwind_register (NEXT) to get the same result, plus we'll > have the option of calling frame_unwind_register (CURRENT) when > we need it. > > Of course this would be a pain to change all at once since there are > so many unwinders. I'd introduce a new method instead > (unwind->prev_register_this?). What do you think? Is there some > reason I didn't think of why it would be naughty to use the current > frame instead of the next one? By the way, if I'm going to be changing the prev_register interface, the other thing I've thought of doing is making it return a struct value instead of filling in a pile of value-like fields (register number, address, lval, et cetera). I am a little worried about how this would affect watchpoints on local variables though. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery