From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9398 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2004 17:33:21 -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 9169 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2004 17:33:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (205.151.10.224) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2004 17:33:15 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910FF2B96; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 10:48:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40265A40.50807@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:33:00 -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: RFC: selected frame in read_var_value References: <20030801192951.GA2109@nevyn.them.org> <3F329038.5040708@redhat.com> <20030828195501.GB27550@nevyn.them.org> <3F58C35A.3060908@redhat.com> <20030907035325.GA9985@nevyn.them.org> <3F5C852D.2010207@redhat.com> <20040208041709.GC13033@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00177.txt.bz2 >> For 6.0, scares the peverbial out of me -> got a convincing argument? >> :-) For the mainline, not phased. > > > Hey Andrew, > > This is something I dropped the ball on. Of course, we're a lot closer > to releasing 6.1 now than we were when I asked you about this in > September. How would you feel about doing it now? If you're > uncomfortable, I'll try to dig up the specific instances Debian users > have reported as causing crashes, instead. > > For reference, here's the function: > > struct frame_info * > deprecated_safe_get_selected_frame (void) > { > if (!target_has_registers || !target_has_stack || !target_has_memory) > return NULL; > return get_selected_frame (); > } Like I said, not phased (MichaelC might be though :-). Suggest adding a note mentioning that the underlying problem is that some code requires both the static (or compile time) scope (identifiable by the SAL or a fake static-frame) when there is no dynamic (or runtime) scope available. There's a discussion of this on gdb@ but my link is down :-( Andrew