From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26677 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2002 13:29:44 -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 26665 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2002 13:29:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2002 13:29:42 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE143EB4; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CFB6F53.50205@cygnus.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 06:29:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0rc3) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Switch to generic_func_frame_chain_valid() References: <3CF948A6.5020500@cygnus.com> <20020602171844.GA9027@branoic.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 06:20:22PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> This finishes off (I think) the FRAME_CHAIN_VALID debate. It sets it to >> generic_func_frame_chain_valid(). That function being tweaked to handle >> both generic dummy frame and the old style frame cases. >> >> I'll commit it in a few days. >> >> Andrew > > > After this goes in, can we start switching existing targets? That > seemed to be the real point of debate - file_frame_chain_valid versus > func_frame_chain_valid. With the addition of a 'set' variable for > people who prefer the file_frame_chain_valid behavior, I don't see any > reason not to. For natives (hmm, need a new name - UNIX like targets?) I think definitly and asap. For more embedded targets, yes, with set - do any targets have custom frame-chain functions? Andrew