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?
Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:
>> 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.
Okay. I figured all the frame-unwind.c code was relatively new, so
diversity was probably deliberate.