From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7013 invoked by alias); 23 May 2007 16:37:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 7004 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2007 16:37:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from hq.tensilica.com (HELO mailapp.tensilica.com) (65.205.227.29) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 May 2007 16:37:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by mailapp.tensilica.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HqtqM-0001WJ-42; Wed, 23 May 2007 09:37:46 -0700 Received: from mailapp.tensilica.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailapp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05733-02; Wed, 23 May 2007 09:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maxim_fc5.hq.tensilica.com ([192.168.11.68]) by mailapp.tensilica.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HqtqL-0001WC-Ly; Wed, 23 May 2007 09:37:45 -0700 Message-ID: <46546DD9.9070705@hq.tensilica.com> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 16:37:00 -0000 From: Maxim Grigoriev User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070102) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy , gdb@sourceware.org, Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: Understanding GDB frames References: <46521C04.7040405@hq.tensilica.com> <465341B8.9060208@hq.tensilica.com> <4653924D.5030304@hq.tensilica.com> <20070523022433.GA4942@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20070523022433.GA4942@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-05/txt/msg00142.txt.bz2 > Why should we improve it this way? I was answering abstract question how would I use "frame_id.special_addr" to improve frame ID analysis. I assumed it's been a theoretical discussion. Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 06:01:01PM -0700, Maxim Grigoriev wrote: > >> Anyway, doesn't it look like a reasonably inexpensive improvement ? >> > > Why should we improve it this way? > > I haven't seen any compelling reason. Jim's already said that you > can't rely on frame ID equality in all cases - this stuff is > tricky to reason about, which is exactly why we try not to export the > frame IDs to the MI client. > >