Re: `chain-frame'

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:17:49AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >>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.
> 
> True.  On the other hand, no one, other than the GDB developer is going 
> to know about it, and it reflects the underlying implementation, so I 
> don't know that it needs any additional context.
> 
> As for it going away, actually, yes it will.  New architectures will 
> hopefully want to implement the three unwind methods directly.  It 
> should lead to a more efficient implementation.  See my post to JimI 
> (cc'd gdb@).

Maybe legacy-chain or generic-chain?   Hmm, I kind of like
generic-chain.  Then the architecture can provide arch-chain.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer