Re: info frame

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 10:16:43AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:33:43 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > > >>      553^done,stack=[frame=
> > > >>      {level="0",addr="0x00003db0",fp="0xbffff2c0",......
> > > 
> > > 0xbffff2c0 should not be the value of $fp but the value of "frame at..." in
> > > 'info frame`?
> > 
> > In fact, it's like that it will be the "frame at" address.
> 
> Daniel, I cannot parse this sentence, and consequently I cannot figure
> out what are you saying in general.

Replace like with likely and it has slightly more intelligible grammar.

> > But I don't
> > think it would be wise to architect that into the interface; I think I
> > explained why earlier, but if not, it's because this is a touchy
> > internal interface for GDB.  If you want to display it to the user, you
> > might want something different - either explicitly the $sp, or
> > explictly the architectural $fp register, or explicitly the call frame
> > address.  If you want to use it in a frontend, then all we should offer
> > is an opaque ID for equality testing, IMHO.
> 
> Are you saying that the "frame at ..." part in the CLI output is
> meaningless for users?  If so, why do we show it at all?

It isn't completely meaningless.  However, it's highly system specific,
and (as Nick noticed) it has changed before.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery