From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8657 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2011 21:51:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 8364 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2011 21:51:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:51:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBTLom51010292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:50:48 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-32.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.32]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBTLoi74031892 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:50:46 -0500 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:13:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Paul Hilfinger Cc: Paul Hilfinger , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Have block_innermost_frame start from selected frame Message-ID: <20111229215043.GA25044@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20111227195809.672D892BF6@kwai.gnat.com> <20111228130130.GA1855@host2.jankratochvil.net> <28663.1325185294@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <28663.1325185294@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00894.txt.bz2 On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:01:34 +0100, Paul Hilfinger wrote: > I understand the argument here, but I'm not sure I can agree. The > ambiguity you speak of already occurs with high frequency, after all, > since when I say > > print x > > there may be many local x's lying around, Yes, some warning/menu-select in such case was one of the ways considered to implement Tom's ambiguous-linespec patch (which I did not implement myself in the end at all, sure kudos to Tom). > that warnings would not be considered helpful. I really do not mind, not more mails are needed, it is true if warning/menu/whatever should be printed in this case you are right there are more such places where it should also happen. Just this is a GDB behavior change so I thought it may be even more appropriate in such case. Never mind. > > /* Return the innermost stack frame executing inside of BLOCK, or NULL > > if there is no such frame. If BLOCK is NULL, just return NULL. */ > > > > struct frame_info * > > block_innermost_frame (const struct block *block) > > Good point. In fact, do you think we should change the function name? > The frame is no longer "innermost", after all. It is still innermost-to-the-selected-frame. There isn't going to be a second function implementing the original innermost-to-the-current-frame behavior. I do not see a need for name change in this case. Thanks, Jan