From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4447 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2009 21:07:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 4439 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2009 21:07:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:07:22 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BB51072C; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:07:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9010610576; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:07:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LQTFH-00054J-56; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:07:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Remove call to deprecated_update_frame_pc_hack from normal_stop Message-ID: <20090123210719.GA19465@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200901232016.07213.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200901232016.07213.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00474.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 08:16:06PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > Do you think there's still a case for having this around? > > We always decrement the PC first thing in handle_inferior_event, > before reiniting the cache. > > Of all other cases I can think of that end up calling normal_stop, > if we end up here without a call to reinit_frame_cache, this hack > is wrong/insuficient anyway. > > While I'm at it, I can eliminate deprecated_update_frame_pc_hack > and deprecated_update_frame_base_hack, by inlining them in their > only caller left. > > Tested on x86_64-linux. This is fine with me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery