Re: [RFA] OSF/1 - "next" over prologueless function call

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>]

> So I think we should follow your suggestion above and separate
> completely the two conditions, conditionalized by legacy_frame_p().
> The function name we could use, at least for now, could be
> handle_subroutine_call() or handle_step_into_function().
> 
> It seems that the correct test when legacy_frame_p() is nonzero
> would only be the frame ID equality test, but I must admit being
> nervous again not knowing how reliable the new frame implementations
> are... Despite the fact that the current heuristics (check if PC ==
> address of function first instruction or is inside function prologue)
> doesn't cover 100% of the cases, it was still a simple, platform
> independent, solid test that worked in most cases. We are about to
> replace that by something that's a bit more complex and might cause some
> unexpected behavior if the unwinder fails to unwind properly (imagine
> for instance that the unwinder skipped one frame).

The new frame code is reliable.  If it wasn't many other areas of the 
testsuite will fail.  I'm ok with the change going in with the new 
handle_step_into_function().

Andrew


> I am really torn, so I am relying on you who has had a closer look at
> the frame implementations that have been converted so far. If it was
> just me, I would be very conservative and simply add and extra
> 
>   || (legacy_frame_p() && frame_id_eq (...))
> 
> It only fixes one problem, but the changes of introducing another is
> smaller. I am a coward :-).
> 
> -- Joel