This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add an undwinder_name field to "struct frame_unwind" for use by "info frame".
- From: Samuel Bronson <naesten at gmail dot com>
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Cc: Samuel Bronson <naesten at gmail dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:24:18 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add an undwinder_name field to "struct frame_unwind" for use by "info frame".
- References: <1243638987-4533-1-git-send-email-naesten@gmail.com> <m37hzrwtgi.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
At Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:59:57 -0600,
Tom Tromey wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Samuel" == Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Samuel> Have "info frame" display this field when present.
> Samuel> Fill in the field for unwinders (besides the sentinel) which are
> Samuel> normally built on i386 Linux.
>
> Funnily enough, I wanted this yesterday :)
>
> This mostly looks ok. It needs a ChangeLog entry. And I have some
> formatting nits...
Hmm. How is that different from the thing above the patch (aka "commit
message")?
> Samuel> +const char *get_frame_unwinder_name (struct frame_info *frame)
>
> Newline after the first "*".
Ah.
> Samuel> + unwinder = get_frame_unwinder_name(fi);
>
> Space before the open paren.
Yeah, I've noticed that you always put those in and have been doing so
myself more recently.
> Also, do you have copyright assignment papers in place? Those are a
> prerequisite for us to accept a non-trivial patch.
Ah, no, not yet. I assume this doesn't qualify? I'd be fairly happy
to do so, my concerns at this point being:
a) what if I write some fairly generic code and end up wanting to BSD it?
b) how do I know you aren't going to add front- or back-cover texts
or invariant sections to the manual?