From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30794 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2002 21:24:45 -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 30758 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2002 21:24:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.red-bean.com) (66.244.67.22) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2002 21:24:41 -0000 Received: from zenia.red-bean.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gBBL4X5h007491; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:04:33 -0500 Received: (from jimb@localhost) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id gBBL4Va7007487; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:04:31 -0500 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/breakpoint] Use a frame ID instead of a frame References: <3DED6E73.4050807@redhat.com> <3DF6589B.7060902@redhat.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:27:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3DF6589B.7060902@redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.92 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00372.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > Ok to commit? Yes, it looks good to me. I can't try it out, since it doesn't apply any more (I guess that's what happens if you take too long to review something), but it seems to me that it should have no effect on the behavior of the code at all, since frame_id_eq actually ignores the PCs of the frame_ids it's passed, so frame_id's behave just like the frame base addresses the code used before. Is that right?