From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20958 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2004 06:47:35 -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 20944 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2004 06:47:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 2004 06:47:34 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0035) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B7qWT-00087B-EB; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 01:45:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 06:47:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Jim Blandy CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Jim Blandy on 28 Mar 2004 13:15:56 -0500) Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] frame_id_unwind Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <4062EBF9.7040908@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00711.txt.bz2 > From: Jim Blandy > Date: 28 Mar 2004 13:15:56 -0500 > > Wouldn't things work better if we moved the decision about where to > stop displaying the stack into user interface code (I don't know if > there's any place shared by cli and mi, but perhaps one could be > created), and left get_prev_frame as a pure stack-traversal function? Yes, I think it would be a good idea to separate the decision of whether to display a frame from the code that traverses the funcall stack.