From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23329 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2009 22:41:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 23317 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2009 22:41:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:41:38 +0000 Received: from wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.101]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n81MfYQT016685 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 23:41:35 +0100 Received: from ywh12 (ywh12.prod.google.com [10.192.8.12]) by wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n81MfWtI015515 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:41:32 -0700 Received: by ywh12 with SMTP id 12so572552ywh.12 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:41:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.32.1 with SMTP id f1mr11349240ybf.96.1251844891974; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:41:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090831225115.GA4365@adacore.com> References: <20090828213237.GA9175@caradoc.them.org> <20090831225115.GA4365@adacore.com> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: Mark outer frames From: Doug Evans To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >>[...] >> So the frame >> id is null_frame_id - which is overloaded to mean 'unknown id' and >> 'no frame at all'. The value checks are using it one way and the >> unwinder is using it the other. >>[...] >> Is it too ugly to live? > > Not sure. I haven't taken the time to look at the patch itself > (trying to focus on the blocking items for the next release), > but if no one else has a better idea... We could try to brainstorm > on that after the branch has been cut... fwiw, I've tripped over this myself a couple of times ("this" being the overloading). I think this patch, or something akin to it, is needed.