Re: `chain-frame'

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

>> 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@).

> saved-frame-chain?

That's got the same problem as `saved-regs-frame'.  Every frame has a 
saved frame chain ...

Andrew