This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch/rfc] Add a sentinel frame


On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 12:51:18PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:



>>When you first committed that stuff, I warned you that would happen :-)
>>The above test handled differently.

>
>
>Hey, you can't blame me for this bit.  I didn't add that check for
>DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY, it was already there in
>generic_frame_chain_valid.


I'm refering to frame_chain_valid(), a small part of which you changed. The useful bits (your changes) were copied to the rewritten get_prev_frame. When frame_chain_valid() is deleted, that duplication will go away. To see what's wrong with frame_chain_valid() see legacy_get_prev_frame.


I'm slow.  Could you explain the problem?  There's a comment about
things being deduced there which is no longer true, and a comment about
leaves of main that I can't make heads nor tails of but I don't think
it applies.

Where does one start? it calls pc_unwind; it calls get_frame_pc; it calls get_frame_base yet we passed in the frame base; it does tests in the wrong order, carefully compare it to get_prev_frame; the lack of frame-id; the fact that, on the sparc, the fp that is passed in was bogus; knowing that all the function was ment to the general confusion over unwinding the pc or fp first; knowing that frame_chain_valid() started out as an equivalent to frame_id_p().


Contrast that to the new get_prev_frame() were everything is handled at the one level.

As I said, to understand this, you're really going to have to study the code.

Andrew



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]