From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 64373 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2018 18:29:24 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 64360 invoked by uid 89); 25 Feb 2018 18:29:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 18:29:22 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-251-162.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.251.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F8D01E072; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 13:29:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [RFA] Make "bt N" print correct number of frames when using a frame filter To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20170423160446.17062-1-tom@tromey.com> <87tw43d1ew.fsf@bapiya> <87tvzjx6pg.fsf@pokyo> <871shqtave.fsf@tromey.com> <87muzy9uxf.fsf@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <22ad5930-4d62-5b4a-83dd-eb0d3e9332c3@simark.ca> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 18:29:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87muzy9uxf.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-02/txt/msg00362.txt.bz2 On 2018-02-24 12:09 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: > > Tom> There's a follow-up as well (to change the enum to use > Tom> DEF_ENUM_FLAGS_TYPE), but that one was OK'd; but still pending since it > Tom> touched the same code as this patch. > > Tom> This is still pending review. > > Tom> Some discussion here: > Tom> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-07/msg00200.html > > Tom> Original patch here: > Tom> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-04/msg00630.html > > Tom> I have a branch with this patch plus the previously-approved patch to > Tom> change frame_filter_flags to use DEF_ENUM_FLAGS_TYPE, so if/when this > Tom> one is ok'd, both will go in. > > Ping again. > > Tom > The patch LGTM, considering all previously made comments are addressed. Did you post the patch that makes frame_filter_frames an enum flags type? I don't see it. If you think it's obvious enough to push it directly, make sure to post it on the ML afterwards. I also noticed that the frame filter flags are documented at many different places: - above gdbpy_apply_frame_filter - above extension_language_ops::apply_frame_filter - above apply_ext_lang_frame_filter - in enum frame_filter_flags This is a recipe for them to become out of date, so I think we should only have it in the enum declaration. We can address that after your patches have merged. Simon