From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9492 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2003 14:09:41 -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 9485 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2003 14:09:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 2003 14:09:41 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19XLq8-0007p7-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:10:36 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19XLpA-0002pm-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:09:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jafa , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Frame handling Message-ID: <20030701140936.GA10877@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Jafa , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <09a601c33f6e$b05a3480$0a02a8c0@scenix.com> <20030701034232.GB3434@nevyn.them.org> <00d001c33f8f$8cc48b30$0a00a8c0@nkelseyhome> <3F018586.8010209@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F018586.8010209@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 08:58:46AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>>>Question - reading through this again I think the goal of call these > >>>>functions is to work with the current frame and the function get passed > >>>>the > >>>>child frame so they can do a backtrace if it hasn't already been > >>>>done... why > >>>>not call a function to do a 1 level backtrace and then eliminate the > >>>>next_frame parameter? It would recduce confusion and most ports will > >>>>have an > >>>>internal unwind function anyway. > > > > > >> > >>>Question - reading through this again I think the goal of call these > >>>functions is to work with the current frame and the function get passed > >>>the > >>>child frame so they can do a backtrace if it hasn't already been done... > >>>why > >>>not call a function to do a 1 level backtrace and then eliminate the > >>>next_frame parameter? It would recduce confusion and most ports will > >>>have an > >>>internal unwind function anyway. > > > >> > >>I'm not sure I understand the question. > > >I agree, and I don't think it will make much difference eitehr way, however > >I was just thinking that it would be a whole lot easier to explain these > >functions... > > > > Um, this is still dangling. Can you please express your question using > terminology consistent with the frame unwind code. I think Nick's question is: why does every architecture implement the cache lazily, instead of GDB instructing the architecture when to create the cache. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer