Re: [patch/rfc] Switch to generic_func_frame_chain_valid()

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:50:47AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 06:20:22PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> This finishes off (I think) the FRAME_CHAIN_VALID debate.  It sets it to
> > >> generic_func_frame_chain_valid().  That function being tweaked to handle
> > >> both generic dummy frame and the old style frame cases.
> > >>
> > >> I'll commit it in a few days.
> > >>
> > >> Andrew
> > >
> > >
> > > After this goes in, can we start switching existing targets?  That
> > > seemed to be the real point of debate - file_frame_chain_valid versus
> > > func_frame_chain_valid.  With the addition of a 'set' variable for
> > > people who prefer the file_frame_chain_valid behavior, I don't see any
> > > reason not to.
> > 
> > For natives (hmm, need a new name - UNIX like targets?) I think
> > definitly and asap.  For more embedded targets, yes, with set - do any
> > targets have custom frame-chain functions?
> 
> Yes, many.  Did you mean "custom frame-chain-valid functions"?
> Yes, I believe there are some of those too.

Assuming Andrew meant custom f-c-valid functions, then there are
several; all of them just add additional restrictions on the PC instead
of taking away.  So I will update them to call the generic function
after they perform their additional checks, instead of duplicating. 
Sound good?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer