From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23251 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2003 15:39:24 -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 23244 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2003 15:39:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2003 15:39:24 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21362B23 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:39:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E89B2AA.5060304@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 15:39:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file References: <20030327113330.GH23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3E84E8B4.7000502@redhat.com> <20030401153125.GY18138@cygbert.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 > Andrew, > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 07:28:36PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> >Index: blockframe.c >> >=================================================================== >> >RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/blockframe.c,v > >> >> For "blockframe.c", please leave it as is. I'm already in enough >> trouble for breaking old targets so I'd prefer to leave that part >> untouched. It would only affect out-of-date targets anyway. The >> up-to-date targets don't rely on that function. > > > I've checked in the frame.c patch but still, I don't understand this > decision. So called out-of-date targets can easily add the > inside_entry_file() call to their frame_chain_valid() implementation > so removing this call from blockframe.c does not necessarily break > them. Keeping this call in blockframe.c on the other hand breaks > some targets for which this call is plainly wrong. So the logic would > imply to remove the call in favour of *all* targets able to run correctly. > > I've checked this patch (including the patch to i386_frame_chain_valid) > on four targets, xstormy16-elf, i686-pc-cygwin, i686-pc-linux and arm-elf. > The first two are running fine then, the latter two are totally > unaffected. You want to run arm and i386 changes past their respective maintainers. Andrew PS: Patch?