From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11473 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2003 18:20:33 -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 11421 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2003 18:20:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 18:20:32 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB26A2B11; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:20:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E7611EC.3020304@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:20:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: frame->unwind->this_base() 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2 >> >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. > Conceptually, are frame->frame and frame->id.base supposed to be the > same? No? Andrew