From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16670 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 17:11:11 -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 16663 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 17:11:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 17:11:10 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750762E96; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:15:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E53BBCB.2010003@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:11:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: GDB Patches Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Add a sentinel frame References: <3E305670.3020700@redhat.com> <3E48378E.6090007@suse.cz> <3E492953.8010001@redhat.com> <3E52173B.1030800@suse.cz> <3E538770.6070209@redhat.com> <20030219140441.GA20537@nevyn.them.org> <3E53B61C.2050807@redhat.com> <20030219165623.GA7961@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00416.txt.bz2 >> No. GDB is trying to perform: >> >> pop_frame (get_current_frame()) >> >> with the assumption that it has a dummy frame and get_current_frame() >> will return it. >> > >> >That's what happens on i386 IIRC... > > > I thought that we wouldn't reach frame_chain_valid if the next frame > was a dummy frame. Hmm, that only seems to happen for deprecated > generic dummy frames: The variable `use_generic_dummy_frames' is deprecated because it is redundant. All targets should use generic dummy frames. Yes, the variable name is screwed up :-( > if (DEPRECATED_USE_GENERIC_DUMMY_FRAMES > && DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY (get_frame_pc (fi), 0, 0)) > return 1; > Oh I didn't realize the contents of frame_chain_valid had ended up > repeated in get_prev_frame, I've been looking at the wrong function. > That's why I didn't understand you. Should the check above exist in > get_prev_frame also? When you first committed that stuff, I warned you that would happen :-) The above test handled differently. > [Why does this logic need to be in more than one place?] Because frame_chain_valid() is only there to keep legacy code working. Need to rename it, need to deprecate the rest of those old methods. Andrew