From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32333 invoked by alias); 8 May 2002 02:04:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32324 invoked from network); 8 May 2002 02:04:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 May 2002 02:04:24 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898EC3D2B; Tue, 7 May 2002 22:04:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CD887A4.6010605@cygnus.com> Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 19:04:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020429 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Tweak for a gdb.mi test. References: <200205080109.g4819B821604@reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com> <20020508013041.GA29600@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00192.txt.bz2 > On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 06:09:11PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > >> >> I'm gonna ask for a second pair of eyes, since I don't know MI >> very well. >> >> What this is -- the test is examining the stack, but it is >> assuming that main is the last frame. My change allows for >> one extra frame below main (eg. for '_start'). >> >> OK to check in? > > > Before you check this in, I would prefer to have a policy decision > in place about whether we should show that frame or not. The relevant > macro is FRAME_CHAIN_VALID; I believe we should universally (or almost > universally) change this to stop at main. I think that's > func_frame_chain_valid but don't trust my memory. (don't remember which function either, but) Yes, I don't think the backtrace should go past main so I think the change is wrong. I remember much debate about the test at the time (it was Cygnus internal unfortunatly). The thing that clinched the deal was the obeservation (made by a human factors person) that the behavour had to be consistent across platforms. For a given OS (e.g. eCos, GNU/Linux, ...) the backtrace should look identical, regardless of the ISA. Having each ISA making independant, and somewhat arbitrary, decisions is wrong. From memory, a suggestion was to let people select the back-trace policy independant of the current architecture. > Some ports (HP/UX comes to mind) do wacky things in this macro/method. > I'm not sure what they accomplish or whether they are really necessary. > Most default to either file_ or func_, and we should standardize that > unless there is a good reason not to. enjoy, Andrew