From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2704 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2013 16:04:29 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 2691 invoked by uid 89); 6 Dec 2013 16:04:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 16:04:28 +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 rB6G4KdE005000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:04:20 -0500 Received: from psique (ovpn-113-192.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.192]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rB6G4GlX031656 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:04:18 -0500 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Pedro Alves Cc: GDB Patches , Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH] Sanitize gdbarch access on probe/SDT API References: <1386225226-18549-1-git-send-email-sergiodj@redhat.com> <52A079DD.5050101@redhat.com> <52A1D61E.1050707@redhat.com> <52A1F482.5010405@redhat.com> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 16:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <52A1F482.5010405@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 06 Dec 2013 16:00:02 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00250.txt.bz2 On Friday, December 06 2013, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 12/06/2013 03:49 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >>> > With that out of the way, would it work to pass the frame pointer down >>> >instead of the gdbarch? >> You mean that the callers should pass the frame pointers, instead of the >> relying on the callees to get it by themselves? > > Something like that. I meant, the patch added a gdbarch parameter to > a few functions, and then passes get_frame_arch (frame) down. Sure, it can be done. I will wait for Tom to commit that cleanup patch of his, and then I'll rebase my modifications on top of it and do this tweak you're asking. Thanks, -- Sergio