Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] gdb/infrun: handle stepping through functions with DW_AT_trampoline

[Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>]

>> It also seems a bit weird that skip_trampoline_functions only affects
>> this one subset of trampoline functions.

> So skip_trampoline_functions is so far only handling the skipping case
> for trampolines indicated by DW_AT_trampoline and not for any other
> case of these thunks emitted by compiler or by signal
> trampolines. Since this case is pretty much defined case for
> subroutines calling the target subroutine but not sure about others
> but may be these solib calls filtering may also be handled with the
> same. Please let me know if we want to filter other trampolines cases
> using the same filter. Mostly it should be "on" case but
> DW_AT_trampoline could be interesting for user if compiler emit it for
> virtual functions and user want to see all the trampoline calls so
> here there could be some cases for end user to see those trampoline
> calls but for thunks or rest I don’t know so let me know then I can
> asses of using the filter option for other trampolines.

Well, it just seems strange to me that after this series we would have
two different ways of handling trampolines, that depend on how the
trampoline is represented by the compiler (something nearly no user will
understand or care about), and that there will be two different ways to
elide frames from a "bt" (there's another one for frame filters).

If we think users don't want to see trampoline frames by default, by all
means elide them, but the setting ought to make sense from a user
perspective, not from a compiler implementer perspective.

Tom