From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28221 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2013 19:02:13 -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 28211 invoked by uid 89); 16 Dec 2013 19:02:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:02:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBGJ28dZ018342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:02:08 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBGJ24SY027840; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:02:05 -0500 Message-ID: <52AF4E2C.2060408@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:02:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Metzger, Markus T" CC: "jan.kratochvil@redhat.com" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [patch v8 15/24] frame, backtrace: allow targets to supply a frame unwinder References: <1386839747-8860-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1386839747-8860-16-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <52AB5194.2050205@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00597.txt.bz2 On 12/16/2013 09:18 AM, Metzger, Markus T wrote: >> ... parts look a bit unrelated. It'd be good to have >> the rationale for this spelled out. I can understand >> why they might be necessary, but I don't see why >> target vs non-unwinders unwinders would be special here? > > Those changes are not directly related to target vs non-target > unwinders. They are connected in that they allow new types > of unwinders. > > I spelled out the rationale for each change in the commit > message. If I missed it, please point me at it. E.g., I didn't see a rationale for the get_frame_unwind_stop_reason change. Something like "We need to do X in get_frame_unwind_stop_reason because otherwise, when we do Y, W doesn't work." > Should I further split this patch into three? IMO, yes. Thanks, -- Pedro Alves