Re: [RFA v2 13/13] Remove verbose code from backtrace command

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 08/14/2017 04:40 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> In https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-06/msg00741.html,
> Pedro asks:
> 
>> Doesn't the "info verbose on" bit affect frame filters too?
> 
> The answer is that yes, it could.  However, it's not completely
> effective, because the C code can't guess how many frames might need
> to be unwound to satisfy the request -- a frame filter will request as
> many frames as it needs.
> 
> Also, I tried removing this code from backtrace, and I think the
> result is better without it.  In particular, now the expansion line
> occurs just before the frame that caused the expansion, like:
> 
>     (gdb) bt no-filters
>     #0  0x00007ffff576cecd in poll () from /lib64/libc.so.6
>     Reading in symbols for ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/event-loop.c...done.
>     #1  0x00000000007ecc33 in gdb_wait_for_event (block=1)
> 	at ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/event-loop.c:772
>     #2  0x00000000007ec006 in gdb_do_one_event ()
> 	at ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/event-loop.c:347
>     #3  0x00000000007ec03e in start_event_loop ()
> 	at ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/event-loop.c:371
>     Reading in symbols for ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/main.c...done.
>     #4  0x000000000086693d in captured_command_loop (
> 	Reading in symbols for ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/exceptions.c...done.
>     data=0x0) at ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/main.c:325
> 
> So, I am proposing this patch to simply remove this code.
> 
> ChangeLog
> 2017-08-13  Tom Tromey  <tom@tromey.com>
> 
> 	* stack.c (backtrace_command_1): Remove verbose code.

This is fine with me.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves