From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25449 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2003 18:28:19 -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 25434 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2003 18:28:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO planck.amplepower.com) (216.39.162.139) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 2003 18:28:18 -0000 Received: from [192.168.8.30] (helo=knuth.amplepower.com ident=roth) by planck.amplepower.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19NzJv-0002hI-00 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:18:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:28:00 -0000 From: "Theodore A. Roth" X-X-Sender: roth@knuth.amplepower.com To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: return_pc in d10v_unwind_cache Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 Hi, I was digging through the d10v searching for wisdom and noticed that the return_pc field of struct d10v_unwind_cache is set in d10v_frame_unwind_cache() but the value is never used anywhere. Is this just a leftover from the removal of d10v_pop_frame() or is there some use for the return pc I'm missing? Ted Roth