From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19197 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2002 22:54:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19026 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2002 22:54:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 2002 22:54:25 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16brFE-0002dq-00; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:54:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: think-o: frame.c:find_saved_register() frame1 = get_prev_frame (frame1) backwards? Message-ID: <20020215175420.A10139@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Buettner , Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3C697103.5060908@cygnus.com> <1020215225041.ZM9434@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1020215225041.ZM9434@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00219.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 03:50:41PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Feb 12, 2:46pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > (it dates back to prior to Red Hats CVS repository). I think this is > > going the wrong way, looking in frame.h the doco indicates: > > > > /* Pointers to the next (down, inner) and previous (up, outer) > > frame_info's in the frame cache. */ > > struct frame_info *next; /* down, inner */ > > struct frame_info *prev; /* up, outer */ > > > > and blockframe.c:get_prev_frame() returns the next ``up, outer'': > > > > /* If we have the prev one, return it */ > > if (next_frame->prev) > > return next_frame->prev; > > > > Given: > > > > a() { b (); } > > > > then it is b() that is saving registers used by a(). And b() is ``down, > > inner''. > > > > confused, > > Andrew > > I don't know. I've also gotten confused when staring at this code. I > don't find the terms "next", "down", or "inner" to be helpful at all > when trying to figure it out either. I think we ought to be referring > to "callers" and "callees". While they may not be 100% accurate (call dummies for instance, signal handlers...) I strongly agree. That's a much clearer term. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer