From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30718 invoked by alias); 19 May 2006 18:12:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 30710 invoked by uid 22791); 19 May 2006 18:12:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 May 2006 18:12:29 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-154-216.inter.net.il [80.230.154.216]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DKH67203 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 19 May 2006 21:12:24 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 18:53:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Jim Blandy CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from Jim Blandy on Fri, 19 May 2006 10:38:36 -0700) Subject: Re: [RFC] Move the frame zero PC check earlier Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060510180312.GA12606@nevyn.them.org> <200605130946.k4D9kZ2M001331@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060513151338.GB3721@nevyn.them.org> <200605131642.k4DGgiqa018273@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060516204503.GC13210@nevyn.them.org> <200605162137.k4GLbZiS014187@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060516221837.GA15617@nevyn.them.org> <1147815745.3672.163.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060517155729.GF27234@adacore.com> <446C3EB3.1040606@st.com> <1147969938.3672.168.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <200605182004.k4IK49Eh003764@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00417.txt.bz2 > Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Jim Blandy > Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:38:36 -0700 > > > I think it was already suggested in this lengthy thread to display > > some kind of message to alert the user. For example: > > > > (Backtrace terminated due to zero return address.) > > > > Would this make everybody fairly happy to zero in on a solution? > > (UNFAIR UNHAPPINESS ABOUT NON-ZERO SOLUTIONS FOR EVERYBODY!!!) > > Well, no: the stacks we'd like to display are healthy and well-formed, > according to the conventions of the system; there's nothing > non-standard about them at all. So they ought to display as normal > stacks --- on those systems. Sorry, I'm too dumb today to see what's humor here and what's for real. It sounds like you want to see no message at all, and OTOH, you also objected to having a user option for turning the message on and off. That leaves us at an impasse.