From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6291 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2012 20:43:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 6281 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Sep 2012 20:43:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:43:09 +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 q8DKh8wj012629 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:43:08 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8DKh7nv011604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:43:08 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch+7.5?] Fix GDB-return into TAILCALL_FRAME (PR 14119) References: <20120912180235.GA13250@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120912180235.GA13250@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:02:35 +0200") Message-ID: <874nn13b8k.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-09/txt/msg00254.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> I am not completely sure the patch in skip_inlined_frames is Jan> appropriate for all the callers of skip_inlined_frames but it seems Jan> so to me, frame_id of TAILCALL_FRAME is artifical the same way like Jan> INLINE_FRAME is. This argument is persuasive, but the patch still makes me a bit nervous, just because the concrete details at each call point may matter. It seems some comments need updating, e.g., inline_depth is overloaded but the comment doesn't indicate this. Jan> No regressions on {x86_64,x86_64-m32,i686}-fedora18-linux-gnu. Jan> I would think this should be even for 7.5. Me too. I'm inclined to say it should go in. Tom