This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: `chain-frame'
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:17:49AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> >>Er, actually, I've, hopefully, got a beter idea:
> >>
> >> extras-frame
> >>
> >>It reflects how the original frame code would use INIT_EXTRA_FRAME_INFO
> >>during initialization.
> >>
> >>Thing is, the phrase `frame chain' is just too useful when describing
> >>the [er] frame chain (all the frames strung together).
> >
> >
> >I don't like "extras-frame" - it has no context outside of the
> >mechanism, which will hopefully go away, right? But this kind of frame
> >isn't going to go away, since we have to cope without CFI data.
>
> True. On the other hand, no one, other than the GDB developer is going
> to know about it, and it reflects the underlying implementation, so I
> don't know that it needs any additional context.
>
> As for it going away, actually, yes it will. New architectures will
> hopefully want to implement the three unwind methods directly. It
> should lead to a more efficient implementation. See my post to JimI
> (cc'd gdb@).
Maybe legacy-chain or generic-chain? Hmm, I kind of like
generic-chain. Then the architecture can provide arch-chain.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer