From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-42507-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 16711 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2006 23:39:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 16703 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2006 23:39:20 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.200)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:39:20 +0000
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so540951nzd         for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:39:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.2.65 with SMTP id e65mr2002450nzi;         Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:39:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.2.5 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:39:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8f2776cb0601261539x3c547df9p3c81651bd967b068@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:39:00 -0000
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
To: NZG <ngustavson@emacinc.com>
Subject: Re: frame theory, was pointer madness
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0601261516l51b150c3u8720b2816f7b624a@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200601231438.26040.ngustavson@emacinc.com> 	 <200601261017.41108.ngustavson@emacinc.com> 	 <20060126164315.GA7821@nevyn.them.org> 	 <200601261354.12256.ngustavson@emacinc.com> 	 <8f2776cb0601261516l51b150c3u8720b2816f7b624a@mail.gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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
X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00440.txt.bz2

On 1/26/06, Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> wrote:
> this paragraph, and 2) Daniel got it backwards too when he said:
>
> >The innermost frame is always #0; it is the first frame "unwound"
> >from the sentinel frame.  Then the next frame is unwound from frame 0.
>
> He should have said "the PREVIOUS frame is unwound from frame 0".

Or, as Jason has pointed out to me, probably Daniel meant "the next
frame" in the sense of "the next frame to be constructed", which is
perfectly correct.  But I do think it's ambiguous.