From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Received: (qmail 8289 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2003 15:52:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 10 Jan 2003 15:52:31 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18X3L1-0004bI-00 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:52:59 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18X1Sf-0001ji-00 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:52:45 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: `chain-frame' Message-ID: <20030110155245.GA6652@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3E1CD9F5.4090607@redhat.com> <20030109023850.GA9277@nevyn.them.org> <3E1CE724.2090401@redhat.com> <20030109031217.GA10222@nevyn.them.org> <3E1EEAFD.7060508@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E1EEAFD.7060508@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00164.txt.bz2 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