From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1718 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2002 00:06:31 -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 1694 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2002 00:06:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2002 00:06:29 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146563C97; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:06:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DF92473.9020908@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:19:00 -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: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Get rid of DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY in i386-tdep.c References: <200212121047.gBCAlFr08321@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00408.txt.bz2 > I was looking at the DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY use in arm-tdep.c last > night and I came to the conclusion that I hadn't a clue what I was > supposed to do to remove it. Is all the code dead? Does it all need > translating into pc_in_dummy_frame? etc, etc. > > Could I suggest that when we deprecate a call some documentation is added > *somewhere* saying what sort of things (I accept that it might not be a > trivial substitution) should be used to replace existing deprecated code. > One possible place would be in gdbarch.sh, though that's constrained a > bit. doc/deprecated.texinfo? I try to leave a comment with the doco but keep missing them :-( > something of the form > > ->> DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY: Replace with calls to XXX or YYY as > appropriate using the new ZZZ methods for doing wibble. > > This would then be a key for things to look up in the manual (the new > methods are documented, right?) to understand how it's all supposed to > work. Things to do during my summer holidays is write said doco (that and the register cache). As for deprecated_pc_in_call_dummy. It should be dead, not needed, redundant, superfulious[sp], irrelevant, gone to meet its creator, ceased to be, .... the only time GDB should call the tdep code is on a normal frame. However, because I've not committed the changes that re-order frame initialization to use the sequence: frame_pc_unwind() frame_id_unwind() create frame The arm may in some way still depend on that macro. If it does I'd like to know. Andrew