From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8493 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2003 00:37:35 -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 8486 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2003 00:37:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (65.49.0.121) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2003 00:37:34 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE6E2B8F; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:37:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FBEAFCB.90601@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:37:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:symtab] deprecate inside_entry_func References: <3FA2F940.5040102@redhat.com> <3FBE6D46.4070201@redhat.com> <20031121195949.GA794@nevyn.them.org> <3FBE79B6.2090209@redhat.com> <20031121204833.GA2356@nevyn.them.org> <3FBE7BD8.2090601@redhat.com> <20031121210412.GA2627@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00458.txt.bz2 >> That's not what I'm asking. >> >> With the call to inside_entry_func removed, from get_prev_frame, can you >> point me at any remainng _legitimate) uses of that function? > > > The other call to it in legacy_frame_chain_valid, which wants to know > the same thing? I imagine the third caller, in frv-tdep.c, is bogus > and could be removed somehow. But if it's going to be left there then > it seems reasonable to update it also. I see Kevin's finally removed that bogus call. > Conceptually the patch you just posted sees to be: > - Change the implementation of inside_entry_func > - Inline the new inside_entry_func into the one caller you're fond of > - Add a deprecated copy of the old implementation for the other > callers > >>>From the man who is always telling us how unimportant performance is > compared to clarity, I don't see the point. Also, this leaves an old > implementation and a new implementation around for no visible reason. "Indirection can be helpful, but needless redirection is irritating." Note that the implementation of the two mechanisms is very different. Better to leave old code using the old mechanism, and new code using the new mechanism. Andrew