From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2906 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2008 23:29:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 2897 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jul 2008 23:29:18 -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; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:28:56 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6086398420; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:28:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402549813B; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:28:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KItwz-0006Go-K0; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:28:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [commit] Rename frame_pc_unwind and frame_unwind_id Message-ID: <20080715232853.GA23500@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080715190125.GC32644@caradoc.them.org> <200807151908.m6FJ8YK3001326@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20080715192213.GC3094@caradoc.them.org> <200807152241.m6FMfCFC008363@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200807152241.m6FMfCFC008363@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00333.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:41:12AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > If it's easy for you to back it out, I'd appreciate it. I really > don't think the new names are an improvement, and they are longer > makeing the code slightly less readable... No trouble, so I backed it out. They're not an improvement in the current case; without the distinction between inlined and non-inlined frames, there's no need to distinguish. They only make sense in the context of inlined frames... > > I'm interested in your comments (about this patch or the larger one). > > ...but my main concern is that this diff and the larger one change the > meaning of a frame. It seems it gets us further away of what I > consider to be frame. Please give me a day or so to study the diff a > bit more, before I give a more detailed reaction. ... which brings us over here. Thanks for looking at it - I really appreciate it! I tried a couple of approaches when I was putting this together, and frankly, I couldn't find any sensible way to not put the inlined functions into the normal frame chain. They have to be frames, or else everything that looks at a frame has to look at some other object; we need them most places that we have a frame. If they're not in the frame chain, then all the obvious uses of get_prev_frame / get_next_frame have questionable semantics. I've already ripped out the ugliest bits of the frame design in my most recent reworking of this patch; I couldn't see how to get rid of them the first time but a year later it was clear. So maybe another perspective will be able to clean this up further. Let me know if you have any questions on the patch; I don't have time right now to write as much internals documentation for it as I'd like, but I'll explain any bit that isn't clear. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery