From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:20:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E8B29E4.2050601@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030402170524.GA29748@nevyn.them.org>
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:02:58PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>>
>
>> >>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:
>
>> >
>> >
>> >I just want to make sure you realize that doing so would defeat the
>> >point of the patch, which was to have the other quoted checks below
>> >apply to all targets. I'm trying to make the target-specific hooks
>> >less powerful, not more.
>> >
>> >But I guess this conversation's gone on so long that I've lost track of
>> >what why this is causing a problem. So maybe I'm missing something
>> >important.
>
>>
>> The original change broke assembler backtraces for at least xstormy16
>> and cygwin.
>
>
> Right, thanks.
>
> If we want this to work - which is explicitly a backtrace into the
> entry file - then we should probably just kill the test. If it causes
> a problem somewhere, we can deal with it, but I don't expect it will.
Keep in mind that the frame_chain_valid() function has been
end-of-life'ed, and the original change has been superseeded by the
get_prev_frame(). Given that, I think the best thing to do is to
restore the old behavior for older targets - hence put that test first.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-02 18:20 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
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 [this message]
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=3E8B29E4.2050601@redhat.com \
--to=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=drow@mvista.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