Re: [patch/rfc] Add a sentinel frame

Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-19T14:04:46Z

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 08:32:32AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> So I think it is one of these tests going awall:
>
> if (next_frame->level >= 0
> && !backtrace_below_main
> && inside_main_func (get_frame_pc (next_frame)))
> /* Don't unwind past main(), bug always unwind the sentinel frame.
> Note, this is done _before_ the frame has been marked as
> previously unwound. That way if the user later decides to
> allow unwinds past main(), that just happens. */
> return NULL;
>
> /* If we're inside the entry file, it isn't valid. */
> /* NOTE: drow/2002-12-25: should there be a way to disable this
> check? It assumes a single small entry file, and the way some
> debug readers (e.g. dbxread) figure out which object is the
> entry file is somewhat hokey. */
> /* NOTE: cagney/2003-01-10: If there is a way of disabling this test
> then it should probably be moved to before the ->prev_p test,
> above. */
> if (inside_entry_file (get_frame_pc (next_frame)))
> return NULL;
>
> The second looks worrying (the dummy frame breakpoint lives in the entry
> file ...). Perhaphs something like:
>
> if (dummy_frame_p (get_frame_pc (next_frame) != NULL
> && inside_entry_file (get_frame_pc (next_frame))
> return NULL;

Hrm, shouldn't we have already detected the dummy frame at this point?
That's what happens on i386 IIRC...

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer