Re: `chain-frame'

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:47:09AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >>This unwinds to the ``inner most frame''.  Instead of calling 
> >>create_new_frame(), get_current_frame() creates this frame and then 
> >>unwinds it.
> >
> >
> >Oh, er.  Right, I should have understood that by now.  Thank you.
> 
> If I was ever granted a wish allowing me to change one (pair) of gdb 
> commands, up/down would be it.

Lord, yes.  Well, maybe that and "until".... :)

> >>Oops, yes.  Just:
> >>
> >>	chain-frame:
> >>
> >>though I think.
> >
> >
> >This'll require playing around with my vocabulary a little to get used
> >to it, but I can buy it.  The general action is "unwinding"; looking
> >for the "chain" is one mechanism.  I like it.
> 
> Er, actually, I've, hopefully, got a beter idea:
> 
> 	extras-frame
> 
> It reflects how the original frame code would use INIT_EXTRA_FRAME_INFO 
> during initialization.
> 
> Thing is, the phrase `frame chain' is just too useful when describing 
> the [er] frame chain (all the frames strung together).

I don't like "extras-frame" - it has no context outside of the
mechanism, which will hopefully go away, right?  But this kind of frame
isn't going to go away, since we have to cope without CFI data.

saved-frame-chain?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer