From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-22826-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 8197 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2005 01:20:03 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 8140 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Oct 2005 01:20:01 -0000
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:20:01 +0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9M1JxwH028229;
	Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:19:59 -0400
Received: from devserv.devel.redhat.com (devserv.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.1])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j9M1JxV11868;
	Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:19:59 -0400
Received: from theseus.home..redhat.com (vpn26-11.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.26.11])
	by devserv.devel.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9M1JslN026007;
	Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:19:56 -0400
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Why do we have two ways of finding sniffers?
References: <vt2slux2gb5.fsf@theseus.home.>
	<200510200846.j9K8k9ou011894@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:20:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <200510200846.j9K8k9ou011894@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:46:09 +0200 (CEST)")
Message-ID: <vt23bmu1h6v.fsf@theseus.home.>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2005-10/txt/msg00131.txt.bz2


Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:
>> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
>> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:16:46 -0700
>> 
>> I don't understand why we need both alternatives.  Shouldn't it be
>> sufficient to simply have each entry in the list point to a function
>> that expects the next frame's frame_info and a prologue cache, and
>> returns a 'struct frame_unwind *' or zero?
>
> I don't think there is a *technical* reason why we need both
> alternatives.  It's more a matter that we had (and still have to some
> extent) a pretty long list of basically unmainted targets.  So
> converting frame_unwind_append_sniffer() into
> frame_unwind_append_unwinder() is difficult to accomplish.  But you
> should really answer Andrew about this since he wrote that code.

Okay.  I figured all the frame-unwind.c code was relatively new, so
diversity was probably deliberate.