From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3992 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2003 23:03:13 -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 3354 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2003 23:01:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 6 Jan 2003 23:01:56 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68CC73D45; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:01:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E1A0ADB.4070203@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 23:03:00 -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: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Mostly kill FRAME_CHAIN_VALID, add user knob References: <20021226191541.GA8483@nevyn.them.org> <3E149438.3040900@redhat.com> <20030105014213.GH28756@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00240.txt.bz2 >> FYI, >> >> Much of this is superseeded by the frame overhaul - in particular the >> introduction of frame_id_unwind(). The new code doesn't even call frame >> chain valid! >> >> Perhaphs wait for the attached [wip] to be committed and then tweak that >> to match your proposed policy (we can then just deprecate >> FRAME_CHAIN_VALID_P :-). However, making the change in parallel >> wouldn't hurt. >> >> Looking at my WIP, I'll need to tweak the code segment: >> >> + prev_frame->pc = frame_pc_unwind (next_frame); >> + if (prev_frame->pc == 0) >> + /* The allocated PREV_FRAME will be reclaimed when the frame >> + obstack is next purged. */ >> + return NULL; >> + prev_frame->type = frame_type_from_pc (prev_frame->pc); >> >> so that it checks for where the PC resides and abort accordingly. >> >> The attached is WIP since I still need to see it working once :-) > > > [Small wonder if you haven't pushed the call to FRAME_CHAIN_VALID > somewhere... that's the same sort of thing that confuses me about all > of your frame changes...] Sorry, I'm lost. Andrew