Re: [rfc] ``pc'' -> resume_addr?

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>]

On Apr 11,  7:35pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Subject: Re: [rfc] ``pc'' -> resume_addr?
> >     frame->pc    ==> frame->resume_addr
> > 
> > This, I think, should change.  I'm 99% sure that this isn't the
> > hardware PC but rather the continue address for the frame (but
> > notice I'm not 100% sure thanks to its poor definition).
> 
> Hmm, there is another approach here.  As with frame_base() from my 
> previous post, a more dynamic:
> 
> 	frame_resume_addr (frame)
> 
> that would let the ISA code compute it on demand using the frame's 
> register information - in theory frame->pc could be removed.

Sure.

But what are the advantages of doing it this way?  Is there a reason
it needs to be this dynamic?

Kevin