This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Why do we have two ways of finding sniffers?
- From: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- To: jimb at redhat dot com
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:46:09 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: Why do we have two ways of finding sniffers?
- References: <vt2slux2gb5.fsf@theseus.home.>
> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:16:46 -0700
>
> I don't understand why we need both alternatives. Shouldn't it be
> sufficient to simply have each entry in the list point to a function
> that expects the next frame's frame_info and a prologue cache, and
> returns a 'struct frame_unwind *' or zero?
I don't think there is a *technical* reason why we need both
alternatives. It's more a matter that we had (and still have to some
extent) a pretty long list of basically unmainted targets. So
converting frame_unwind_append_sniffer() into
frame_unwind_append_unwinder() is difficult to accomplish. But you
should really answer Andrew about this since he wrote that code.
Mark