From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 16:36:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E8B1178.6050605@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030402092741.GA26480@cygbert.vinschen.de>
>> > Per my previous comment, I'd prefer to not touch the old code at all -
>> > let it die. Mark, I'll note, already has i386 replacement code in waiting.
>> >
>> > The other thing to do is to ask DanielJ if he knows anything more about
>> > that specific case.
>
>>
>> Nope. It was there before I put my hands on it; it seems suspicious to
>> me though.
>
>
> What do you mean by "suspicious"? You did already comment on this in
> blockframe.c so I assume you had rather mixed feelings about this call.
>
> I don't see a reason not to change this. It will take some time to
> move all targets to the new scheme. Why should some of the not converted
> targets remain broken due to an obvious bug?
I'm beginning to think that reverting some of the original change:
RFC: Mostly kill FRAME_CHAIN_VALID, add user knob
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00683.html
might be the best option. What about moving this:
> +
> + /* If the architecture has a custom FRAME_CHAIN_VALID, call it
now. */
> + if (FRAME_CHAIN_VALID_P ())
> + return FRAME_CHAIN_VALID (fp, fi);
to before this:
+ /* If we're already inside the entry function for the main objfile,
then it
+ isn't valid. */
+ if (inside_entry_func (get_frame_pc (fi)))
+ return 0;
+
+ /* 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. */
+ if (inside_entry_file (frame_pc_unwind (fi)))
+ return 0;
+
+ /* If we want backtraces to stop at main, and we're inside main, then it
+ isn't valid. */
+ if (!backtrace_below_main && inside_main_func (get_frame_pc (fi)))
+ return 0;
That more closely resembles the original behavior.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-02 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-27 11:33 Corinna Vinschen
2003-03-29 0:28 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-01 15:31 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-01 15:38 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-01 15:39 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-01 16:18 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-01 16:35 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-01 17:03 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-01 17:30 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-01 19:58 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-04-02 9:27 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-02 16:36 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2003-04-02 16:42 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-04-02 17:03 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-02 17:05 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-04-02 18:20 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-02 18:23 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-04-02 20:11 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-02 20:38 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-04-03 13:17 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-05 13:57 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-04-10 11:12 ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-04-02 16:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3E8B1178.6050605@redhat.com \
--to=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox