From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-16047-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 20929 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2002 18:05:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 20890 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2002 18:05:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2002 18:05:55 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50])
	by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA21684;
	Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3CFBAC77.5B3AADD3@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 11:05:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
CC: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>, 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> <3CFB6F53.50205@cygnus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > 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?

Yes, many.  Did you mean "custom frame-chain-valid functions"?
Yes, I believe there are some of those too.