From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 122692 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2018 09:08:49 -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 122681 invoked by uid 89); 28 Aug 2018 09:08:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_1,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:08:47 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuZzR-0000Op-LS for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 05:08:46 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:39057) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuZzI-00004r-Ek; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 05:08:36 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4898 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fuZzH-0004Ts-QC; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 05:08:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:08:00 -0000 Message-Id: <837eka504x.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew Burgess CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be In-reply-to: <20180828084332.GI32506@embecosm.com> (message from Andrew Burgess on Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:43:32 +0100) Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 0/2] gdb: Change how frames are selected for 'frame' and 'info frame'. References: <20180725181406.GA3155@embecosm.com> <20180827110353.GE32506@embecosm.com> <83zhx74yva.fsf@gnu.org> <20180828084332.GI32506@embecosm.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-08/txt/msg00679.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:43:32 +0100 > From: Andrew Burgess > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be > > I like your proposed new paragraph as it mentions both the word > 'level' and the word 'number', and I wondered if we couldn't sidestep > the issue of which term is "correct", at least for a little while, > with something like this: > > @value{GDBN} labels each existing stack frame with a @dfn{level}, a > number that is zero for the innermost frame, one for the frame that > called it, and so on upward. These level numbers give you a way of > designating stack frames in @value{GDBN} commands. The terms > @dfn{frame number} and @dfn{frame level} can be used interchangably to > describe this number. > > I'd also propose we add both 'frame number' and 'frame level' to the > concept index (see patch below). Do you think that if I added this > chunk to the existing level patch we would have something that was > clear enough to merge? Yes, thanks.