From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12249 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2003 12:58:52 -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 12241 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2003 12:58:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.166.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 2003 12:58:52 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047832B74; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F018586.8010209@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:58:00 -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: Jafa Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Frame handling References: <09a601c33f6e$b05a3480$0a02a8c0@scenix.com> <20030701034232.GB3434@nevyn.them.org> <00d001c33f8f$8cc48b30$0a00a8c0@nkelseyhome> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 >>>> Question - reading through this again I think the goal of call these >>>> functions is to work with the current frame and the function get passed the >>>> child frame so they can do a backtrace if it hasn't already been done... why >>>> not call a function to do a 1 level backtrace and then eliminate the >>>> next_frame parameter? It would recduce confusion and most ports will have an >>>> internal unwind function anyway. > > >> >>> Question - reading through this again I think the goal of call these >>> functions is to work with the current frame and the function get passed the >>> child frame so they can do a backtrace if it hasn't already been done... why >>> not call a function to do a 1 level backtrace and then eliminate the >>> next_frame parameter? It would recduce confusion and most ports will have an >>> internal unwind function anyway. > >> >> I'm not sure I understand the question. > I agree, and I don't think it will make much difference eitehr way, however > I was just thinking that it would be a whole lot easier to explain these > functions... > Um, this is still dangling. Can you please express your question using terminology consistent with the frame unwind code. Andrew