From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18278 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2004 22:19:06 -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 18261 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2004 22:19:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2004 22:19:05 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0730A2B92; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:19:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40201E5A.70605@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:19:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Fix inside entry func call References: <401F1E37.10007@gnu.org> <20040203172553.GA20758@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:06:15PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> This, cleans up one part of a long dangling thread. Per: >> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-11/msg00462.html >> This modifies the unwind code so that it uses the test: >> >> + && get_frame_func (this_frame) == entry_point_address () >> >> that that in place, the old inside_entry_func can be made static to >> blockframe.c. This should reduce Kevin's patch to just doco + frame.c >> tweaks. >> >> comments? > > > Please re-read that discussion. Particularly: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-11/msg00459.html > > in which I asked you to leave the call to inside_entry_func and change > its implementation. You asked for other legitimate uses of this > function, and I gave you some. Sorry, I'm lost. Right now, even without this patch, there is only one call path to that function: get_prev_frame legacy_get_prev_frame legacy_frame_chain_valid inside_entry_func It is there to prop up legacy code. Given this, I even considered deleting it (or folding it into legacy_frame_chain_valid). Do you want me to add a new separate static frame.c:inside_entry_func? Andrew