From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32161 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2003 19:35:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32086 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2003 19:35:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 19:35:42 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18v2I1-0003Nu-00; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:37:02 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18v0OX-0002wR-00; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:35:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: frame->unwind->this_base() Message-ID: <20030317193537.GA11288@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3E74F4F4.50003@redhat.com> <20030316221008.GA19037@nevyn.them.org> <3E75121F.4030405@redhat.com> <20030317001407.GA20827@nevyn.them.org> <3E75F64B.5040700@redhat.com> <20030317163843.GA11494@nevyn.them.org> <3E75FE48.9000104@redhat.com> <20030317171142.GA15367@nevyn.them.org> <3E7611EC.3020304@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E7611EC.3020304@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 01:20:28PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>>GDB's frame code also makes available the get_frame_base() method. While > >>>the default implementation returns get_frame_id().base, I think there is > >>>going to need to be a per-frame frame->unwind->this_base method. > > > >> > >>get_frame_base() returns ->frame and NOT ->id.base. > > > > > >OK, I'm definitely going around in confused little circles. Don't the > >two statements above disagree? > > No. See get_prev_frame() where it is defaulting ->frame to ->id.base. > > > The current get_frame_base does return > >->frame but you also say above that get_frame_base should return > >get_frame_id().base. > > No. Default to get_frame_id().base. So is that supposed to be a statement about the future in the first paragraph? It's sure not worded as one, no wonder I'm confused. > >Conceptually, are frame->frame and frame->id.base supposed to be the > >same? > > No? Then could you enlighten me as to what the difference is supposed to be? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer