From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11952 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2006 12:26:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 11943 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2006 12:26:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:26:12 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FVSnu-0003aW-KL; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:26:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sources.redhat.com, nickrob@snap.net.nz Subject: Re: info frame Message-ID: <20060417122605.GA13723@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Mark Kettenis , gdb@sources.redhat.com, nickrob@snap.net.nz References: <17474.53281.404673.189792@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <200604162333.k3GNXLeX004661@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <17474.58179.83052.362944@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20060417013343.GA4114@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00240.txt.bz2 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 > > Cc: Mark Kettenis , 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