From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30754 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2002 02:17:32 -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 30745 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2002 02:17:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 2002 02:17:31 -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 TAA10629; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D6AE138.990C4C6B@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:24:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michal Ludvig CC: Andrew Cagney , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [RFA] struct context moved References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00888.txt.bz2 Michal Ludvig wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > the appended patch moved declaration of struct context and struct context_reg to frame.h, where these two are used in struct frame_info. > > > OK to commit? > > > > > > 2002-07-08 Michal Ludvig > > > > > > * dwarf2cfi.c (struct context, struct context_reg): Moved... > > > * farme.h (struct context, struct context_reg): ...here. > > > > > > Michal Ludvig > > > > Michael, > > > > I don't understand the rationale behind this. > > > > As a general trend, frame.h / struct frame is becomming increasingly > > opaque. I don't see a reason for moving dwarf2cfi specific stuff into > > frame.h. > > Because we have > struct context *context; > in the declaration of "struct frame_info", I thought it was logical to > declare "struct context" in the same file. Otherwise, when debugging gdb > itself, I'm getting "incomplete type" message when examining the content > of struct frame_info. AFAIK it doesn't increase the size of the code, it > just gives to debugger the appropriate information about the type of > the structure. > > Or am I wrong? I don't know if this thread is still alive, but this change certainly seems wrong to me. Most of GDB does not need to know about these structures. I assume their use is strictly contained within dwarf2cfi.