Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] frame: use get_prev_frame_always in skip_tailcall_frames

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> > I was going to ask the very same :-). The fact that adding your test showed
> > we missed a spot raised the question as to how much of the initial patch we
> > were testing :).
> 
> I don't get your comment.

This is the logic behind it: Presumably, your initial patch did
fix something. It would be nice to have that tested, hence the
suggestion to add that. You then added a test, but I think it
only partially overlaps with the situation your initial patch
was trying to cover, because the test you added uncovered a spot
that you didn't need to change before. That's why I think there
is a strong chance that adding one more test would increase coverage
of your patch.

Or said differently, if we undid any hunk in your commit, would
a test immediately regress?

> I'm beginning to wonder if not all-but-the-backtrace-command-related
> get_prev_frame calls should really be calling get_prev_frame_always.
> 
> The _always extension isn't very intuitive, though, given that this should be
> the standard function to use.  Should get_prev_frame maybe be renamed to
> something like get_prev_frame_within_limit and get_prev_frame_always
> to get_prev_frame?

(need more time to answer that question)

-- 
Joel