From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13337 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2016 14:44:03 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 13318 invoked by uid 89); 9 Feb 2016 14:44:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=hunk, uncovered X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:44:01 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC37D116953; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 09:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id jOkD15DiViZT; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 09:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46616116951; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 09:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2FC66406C6; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:43:50 +0400 (RET) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:44:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: "Metzger, Markus T" Cc: Pedro Alves , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] frame: use get_prev_frame_always in skip_tailcall_frames Message-ID: <20160209144350.GI15342@adacore.com> References: <1454681922-2228-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1454681922-2228-2-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <20160207130057.GE20874@adacore.com> <56B9D08F.6060507@redhat.com> <20160209115819.GH15342@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 > > 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