From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29112 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2002 18:05:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28738 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2002 18:05:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2002 18:05:40 -0000 Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442) id C47B35EA11; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 13:05:37 -0500 (EST) To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] block_innermost_frame tweak References: <20020620131440.M397@gnat.com> <3D126D8A.9020908@cygnus.com> <3D138B65.8070401@cygnus.com> <3D13AEE9.10209@cygnus.com> <20020702174116.GP17987@gnat.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 11:05:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20020702174116.GP17987@gnat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker writes: > > Andrew Cagney writes: > > > Oops, I guess we're back to frame_address_in_block() then? > > > > Sure thing. > > Sorry for letting this drag for so long. So is the last patch I > submitted fine if I replace get_frame_calling_pc by > frame_address_in_block? The latter is the name we all agreed on, right? I think it's okay, then. > I am including the previous changelog just as a "refresher". No you aren't. :)