From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 126621 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2018 15:23:56 -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 126589 invoked by uid 89); 27 Aug 2018 15:23:54 -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=invited, upward, veteran 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; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 15:23:53 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuJMs-0007Ez-I2 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 11:23:51 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43392) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuJMm-0007AM-AY; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 11:23:44 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1048 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fuJMl-0000yF-UH; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 11:23:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 15:23:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83zhx74yva.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew Burgess CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be In-reply-to: <20180827110353.GE32506@embecosm.com> (message from Andrew Burgess on Mon, 27 Aug 2018 12:03:54 +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> 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/msg00661.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 12:03:54 +0100 > From: Andrew Burgess > Cc: Philippe Waroquiers , > Eli Zaretskii > > Eli: > > In this message: > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-07/msg00670.html > Philippe highlighted that you might have some reservations about > this patch series, which I think is currently the main blocker for > this patch getting approval. > > In the thread started here: > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-05/msg00299.html > and ending here: > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00142.html > you did review and approve one of the original patch variants, which > is most like the "level" variant of the patch submitted here: > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-08/msg00337.html > > I would be really grateful if you could let me know your current > thoughts on this patch, are you happy to have the "level" variant > merged based on your previous approval, or has you position changed? I just said I question the wisdom of changing such veteran terminology. And then: If we are going to make this change, then I would suggest to keep the index entry, _add_ to it an entry about "frame level", and explain here what that level is, 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. IOW, I urged us to think whether we really want the change (and invited others to comment). Then I had a small suggestion for if we do make the change. That is all. It was never my intention to block the patch, and if my words were unfortunate enough to be interpreted that way, I apologize. Thanks.