From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-117430-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 5433 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2014 17:20:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 5421 invoked by uid 89); 12 Nov 2014 17:20:41 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:20:40 +0000
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sACHKVfA006384	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL);	Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:20:31 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11])	by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sACHKT8j027301;	Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:20:29 -0500
Message-ID: <546396DC.1020803@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:20:00 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>,        Martin Galvan <martin.galvan@tallertechnologies.com>
CC: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>,        gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,        Daniel Gutson <daniel.gutson@tallertechnologies.com>
Subject: Re: [PING][RFC][PATCH v2] Python API: add gdb.stack_may_be_invalid
References: <CAOKbPbZd+ppseGQW2OirBm4y5O=LgUMP-Pf8=RF00hnPOuMutw@mail.gmail.com>	<201411071727.sA7HRNIQ007851@d03av02.boulder.ibm.com>	<CAOKbPbY24zgvHdmAYQvR6H=sCsF6ixzwvwdbhPpBkcdcsMotiw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAOKbPbaa2jZonzn-tcH9C8ge5AVUJHJeREwWNLOokFqr7dd6vw@mail.gmail.com> <CADPb22R+QxbZGHJxi1nC_idq3NmOnaDmGS_JLc_Wyio1m2LXBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADPb22R+QxbZGHJxi1nC_idq3NmOnaDmGS_JLc_Wyio1m2LXBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00222.txt.bz2

On 11/12/2014 05:06 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
> 
> Plus the name "stack is destroyed" is confusing.
> This function is just a wrapper around gdbarch_in_function_epilogue_p
> so I'd just call it in_function_epilogue_p (or
> gdbpy_in_function_epilogue_p or some such).

Can we agree to rename the gdbarch hook instead?
The function does _not_ return whether the PC is in the epilogue.

https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-10/msg00590.html

Thanks,
Pedro Alves