Re: [patch/rfc] FRAME_FP() -> get_frame_base()

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> On Nov 19,  2:55pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> 
>> The mechanics of the change are obvious.  The new function's name, 
>> though, is not.  The following names come to mind:
>> 
>> get_frame_base()
>> Hints that the address is some how associated with the frame's base. 
>> Hopefully this conveys the notion that the address shouldn't change 
>> throughout the lifetime of the frame.
>> 
>> get_frame_address()
>> Like get_frame_base() but without that strong association with the 
>> frame's base.  It does fit in well with the gdbarch methods 
>> frame_locals_address() and frame_args_address() though.
>> 
>> get_frame_fp()
>> Would associate the address with the `frame-pointer'.   I don't like 
>> this one since, in the past, FP has been too closely associated to a 
>> real register, and the register definitly changes across the lifetime of 
>> the frame.
>> 
>> Preferences?
> 
> 
> I think get_frame_base() is a good choice.  I like get_frame_address()
> too, but if using "base" somehow helps us to remember that this
> address remains constant, then that's a good thing.
> 
> [...]
> 
>> - (I guess) re-vamp the PPC so that get_frame_base() is constant through 
>> out the lifetime of a frame.
> 
> 
> Yes, I guess so.  I had to think about this a while though -- the current
> placement of ->frame makes a lot of sense.
> 
> Kevin

Any other votes?

Andrew