From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ac131313@redhat.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Received: (qmail 4611 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2003 15:47:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10)
  by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 10 Jan 2003 15:47:26 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BBE423E02; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:47:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3E1EEAFD.7060508@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:47:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: `chain-frame'
References: <3E1CD9F5.4090607@redhat.com> <20030109023850.GA9277@nevyn.them.org> <3E1CE724.2090401@redhat.com> <20030109031217.GA10222@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2


>> This unwinds to the ``inner most frame''.  Instead of calling 
>> create_new_frame(), get_current_frame() creates this frame and then 
>> unwinds it.
> 
> 
> Oh, er.  Right, I should have understood that by now.  Thank you.

If I was ever granted a wish allowing me to change one (pair) of gdb 
commands, up/down would be it.

>> Oops, yes.  Just:
>> 
>> 	chain-frame:
>> 
>> though I think.
> 
> 
> This'll require playing around with my vocabulary a little to get used
> to it, but I can buy it.  The general action is "unwinding"; looking
> for the "chain" is one mechanism.  I like it.

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).

Andrew