From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32694 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2004 21:49:09 -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 32683 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2004 21:49:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2004 21:49:05 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E6B2B92; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:49:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <406B3CD3.9040102@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:49:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Use frame_type for sigtramp test in infrun.c References: <200403292338.BAA16799@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> In-Reply-To: <200403292338.BAA16799@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00771.txt.bz2 > Why is this if needed in the first place? Isn't this just to work around > frame problems that caused step_over_function to not handle signal handlers > correctly? I.e. if we have new-style frames that work properly, can't we > just skip that whole if? Literally, who knows! Do quote daniel, it's before my time :-) Removal sounds tempting, but first I think I'll yank all the legacy paths. Andrew