This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] Use of create_new_frame from 'frame'.
- From: Andrew Burgess <andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:16:13 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Use of create_new_frame from 'frame'.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150708170944 dot GA17985 at embecosm dot com> <83io9uv3lb dot fsf at gnu dot org>
* Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [2015-07-08 22:42:08 +0300]:
> > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 18:09:44 +0100
> > From: Andrew Burgess <andrew.burgess@embecosm.com>
> >
> > I wonder then if there's a better way to offer this feature. The two
> > possible choices (other suggestions welcome) are:
> >
> > 1. Create a new command 'create-frame' that takes one or two
> > arguments, and always creates and selects a new frame new frame.
> > The frame command no longer creates new frames.
> >
> > 2. Make 'frame' take an (optional) flag (like 'x', or
> > 'disassemble'), so a user can now say:
> > frame /c STACK-ADDR PC-ADDR
> > in order to create (and select) a new frame. Without the /c flag
> > no new frames are created. With the flag only new frames are
> > created, old frames are not selected.
>
> You could also ask the user for confirmation, when the command is
> going to create a new frame.
That's certainly a possible option. I didn't list it as it does not
in itself solve the problem of different length backtraces preventing
the creation of frames; a backtrace of length 100 means the user can't
create a frame at address 100.
Thanks,
Andrew