From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1256 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2008 14:08:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 1192 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jan 2008 14:08:20 -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; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:02:32 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E929811F; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:02:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5181F98118; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:02:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JA4Au-00085p-I6; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:02:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:08:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] no frame needed when computing address of subprogram Message-ID: <20080102140228.GA30326@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080101134652.GB3770@adacore.com> <20080102125718.GB30490@caradoc.them.org> <20080102134910.GE15903@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080102134910.GE15903@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 05:49:10AM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I suggest, however, that we still go ahead with the patch I sent, > because it protects all languages. Yes, I agree; the patch is OK. I just wanted to understand the difference for Ada. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery