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 24135 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2003 16:21:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 10 Jan 2003 16:21:18 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18X3ms-0004ef-00 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:21:46 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18X1uW-0002Dp-00 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:21:32 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: `chain-frame' Message-ID: <20030110162132.GA8514@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> <20030110155245.GA6652@nevyn.them.org> <3E1EF22D.5060508@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E1EF22D.5060508@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2 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