From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AE4394200D for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:04:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-5-5bpzfBfZPcqpxdjFb2jZ1Q-1; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:04:01 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 5bpzfBfZPcqpxdjFb2jZ1Q-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D4B4100550D; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:04:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f31-4.lan (ovpn-116-156.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.156]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E19360BF1; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:04:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:03:59 -0700 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: Print frame address in more cases Message-ID: <20200312170359.5e79e93a@f31-4.lan> In-Reply-To: <20200304141258.17737-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> References: <20200304141258.17737-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:04:04 -0000 On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 14:12:58 +0000 Andrew Burgess wrote: > The duplicated address might also be confusing, though (personally) I > think it is slightly more obvious from the duplicated addresses that > the frames are inlined, however, if people strongly disagree and > prefer the no-address layout we could make this feature switchable. I prefer the no-address layout. I think it might be worth making it switchable. Kevin