Re: [FYI] Inlining support, rough patch

Mark Kettenis
2009-03-31T20:42:46Z

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:00:56 -0600
>
> Resurrecting an old thread...
>
> Mark> It's the ID construction that I'm worried about. It is the very core
> Mark> of the unwinding code. I really think your diff violates the most
> Mark> fundamental principle of this bit of code and in that way, makes it
> Mark> much harder to understand it.
>
> Daniel> I don't understand what you mean when you say this makes the generic
> Daniel> code any harder to understand. Can you point to lines for me?
>
> [...]
>
> Daniel> If you can think of a way to do this that doesn't involve complicating
> Daniel> the generic unwind machinery - exactly what we're both trying to avoid
> Daniel> - I'll give it another shot.
>
> Mark, could you answer Daniel's questions? This patch has been in
> limbo since last July. I'd like to at least know what needs to be
> done to move forward on this.

A bit hard after more than 9 months :(.

IIRC Daniels diff really turned the whole stack unwinding upside down.

> FWIW, we're shipping this in Archer. I think other organizations are
> shipping it as well. Debugging inlined functions nicely is a
> frequently requested feature; I answer questions about it on irc at
> least once a week.

I agree that it is an important feature. I'll see if I can wrap my
head around this again now that I'm not in an airport every other
week again.