Re: [patch/rfc] Add a sentinel frame

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 12:15:55PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >  if (DEPRECATED_USE_GENERIC_DUMMY_FRAMES
> >      && DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY (get_frame_pc (fi), 0, 0))
> >    return 1;
> 
> >Oh I didn't realize the contents of frame_chain_valid had ended up
> >repeated in get_prev_frame, I've been looking at the wrong function.
> >That's why I didn't understand you.  Should the check above exist in
> >get_prev_frame also?
> 
> When you first committed that stuff, I warned you that would happen :-)
> The above test handled differently.

Hey, you can't blame me for this bit.  I didn't add that check for
DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY, it was already there in
generic_frame_chain_valid.

> >[Why does this logic need to be in more than one place?]
> 
> Because frame_chain_valid() is only there to keep legacy code working. 
> Need to rename it, need to deprecate the rest of those old methods.

That doesn't answer my question though.

I don't understand why you have to move the logic out of
frame_chain_valid instead of _using_ it from get_prev_frame.  Does it
not have the interface you want?  Does it do something grubby in frames
that it shouldn't?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer