From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7667 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2002 21:42:48 -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 7658 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2002 21:42:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2002 21:42:47 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DA83C17; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:42:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DF7B152.1040106@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:46:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/breakpoint] Use a frame ID instead of a frame References: <3DED6E73.4050807@redhat.com> <3DF6589B.7060902@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00374.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney writes: > >> Ok to commit? > > > Yes, it looks good to me. Thanks! > I can't try it out, since it doesn't apply any more (I guess that's > what happens if you take too long to review something), but it seems > to me that it should have no effect on the behavior of the code at > all, since frame_id_eq actually ignores the PCs of the frame_ids it's > passed, so frame_id's behave just like the frame base addresses the > code used before. Is that right? Yes, that is correct. The code in frame_id_eq() is intentionally missing (I've tried adding it but it has zero effect on the i386 test results -> need more tests :-(). Andrew