From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11093 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2013 19:22:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 11081 invoked by uid 89); 16 Dec 2013 19:22:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:22:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBGJMiqI026409 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:22:45 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rBGJMhFD003043; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:22:43 -0500 Message-ID: <52AF5302.4010308@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:22:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Metzger, Markus T" CC: "jan.kratochvil@redhat.com" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [patch v8 21/24] record-btrace: extend unwinder References: <1386839747-8860-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1386839747-8860-22-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <52AB63BB.30206@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00599.txt.bz2 On 12/16/2013 12:42 PM, Metzger, Markus T wrote: >>> @@ -222,7 +222,11 @@ enum frame_type >>> ARCH_FRAME, >>> /* Sentinel or registers frame. This frame obtains register values >>> direct from the inferior's registers. */ >>> - SENTINEL_FRAME >>> + SENTINEL_FRAME, >>> + /* A branch tracing frame. */ >>> + BTRACE_FRAME, >>> + /* A branch tracing tail call frame. */ >>> + BTRACE_TAILCALL_FRAME >>> }; >> >> Hmm? Why were these needed? Missing patch rationale... And missing >> comments, I suppose. > > The alternative would be to pretend that they are NORMAL_FRAME > and TAILCALL_FRAME, respectively. I thought it cleaner to add a new > frame type. Those frames don't have available stack. > > Do you want me to use NORMAL_FRAME and TAILCALL_FRAME, instead? If they behave example like those, then yes. I wouldn't call it "pretend" then. This is IMO just like we don't have other frames types for the many different implementations of NORMAL_FRAMEs or SIGTRAP_FRAME unwinders, etc., and likewise for when inspecting tracepoint traceframes with unavailable stack. IOW, is there any place in the common code that needs to distinguish NORMAL_FRAME vs BTRACE_FRAME and TAILCALL_FRAME vs BTRACE_TAILCALL_FRAME? -- Pedro Alves