From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19142 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2002 22:55:40 -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 19125 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2002 22:55:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jun 2002 22:55:37 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB2B3D66; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:55:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D13AEE9.10209@cygnus.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:55:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020613 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] block_innermost_frame tweak References: <20020620131440.M397@gnat.com> <3D126D8A.9020908@cygnus.com> <3D138B65.8070401@cygnus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00451.txt.bz2 > > What about all the prologue analyzers? > > /* Return PC of first real instruction. */ > > int > i386_skip_prologue (int pc) > { > unsigned char op; > int i; > > static CORE_ADDR > mn10300_analyze_prologue (struct frame_info *fi, CORE_ADDR pc) > { > > What about the line table entries? > > /* Each item represents a line-->pc (or the reverse) mapping. This is > somewhat more wasteful of space than one might wish, but since only > the files which are actually debugged are read in to core, we don't > waste much space. */ > > struct linetable_entry > { > int line; > CORE_ADDR pc; > }; > > I'm all for choosing conventions and sticking to them, but in everyday > speech (well, everyday speech for debugger people), a `pc' is just any > kind of pointer to an instruction. And it just looks to me like > that's the way GDB uses it, too. Yes, and in each of the above, the PC designates the address of an instruction that, hopefully, the target would/could resume execution from. > But if I'm the only one who has this reaction, then I don't mind the >> > renaming. >> > Is there some third terse term that indicates (or could indicate, by >> > establishing a convention) "pointer into the instruction stream that >> > isn't necessarily an instruction address or the value of a register"? > >> >> The reason for suggesting ``block'' was that it hopefully implies a >> code block. frame_address_within_code_block()? > > > This is getting worse. Oops, I guess we're back to frame_address_in_block() then? Andrew