From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10289 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2003 17:33:28 -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 10154 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2003 17:33:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.131) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Jun 2003 17:33:26 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5EAA2B2F; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:33:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EDE2D5B.8070809@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:33:00 -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: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA/frame stuff] Fix build failure in alpha-osf1-tdep.c References: <20030604002702.GP919@gnat.com> <3EDD5DAA.1060300@redhat.com> <20030604060512.GW919@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00174.txt.bz2 >> >2003-06-03 J. Brobecker >> > >> > * alpha-osf1-tdep.c (alpha_osf1_skip_sigtramp_frame): Replace >> > references to struct frame_info fields by calls to the equivalent >> > accessors. Necessary now that frame_info is opaque. >> > (alpha_osf1_pc_in_sigtramp): Likewise. >> > >> >Looks ok? > >> >> Yes. If you're feeling game you could use get_frame_memory, but >> either way. > > > Andrew, please forgive for not having followed the discussions about > the new frame architecture too closely (I did go and read the messages > you recently pointed out to Daniel, though!). > > You are saying either way; however, my current understanding is that > get_frame_memory is not currently any different from the above, but > is still a better approach in the long run if we eventually want to be > multi-everything. Is it correct? Yes. > I am not sure if it is really worth fixing this sort of thing now, or > worry about it later... You know the grand plan, so your call. If the change is straight forward, might as well. If it's a struggle, don't bother - I'll be looking over the code anyway to see where there are problems. I'm also pretty sure that there is going to be a new architecture method so that: xxx_frame__yyy (get_frame_arch (frame), frame, ...) can be written as: xxx_frame_yyy (frame, ....); Anyway, to scare you :-) There is some interest in fixing GDB's Java. [insert manditory slander directed towards the old code] The current implementation has more limitiations than one can point a stick at. Off the top of my head: - namespaces - bytecodes and a byte code target - backtraces through libffi To get these working, it's going to be especially important to avoid globals such as current_gdbarch. Anyway, I think the first thing is get the infrastructure working here. Andrew