From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11011 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2002 01:32:35 -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 11004 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2002 01:32:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Nov 2002 01:32:33 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1248A3E4B; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:32:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DDEDAAA.6030007@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:32:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] FRAME_FP() -> get_frame_base() References: <3DDA9741.4050001@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00569.txt.bz2 > 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