This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: info frame

On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 10:16:43AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:33:43 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <>
> > Cc: Mark Kettenis <>,
> > 
> > > >>      553^done,stack=[frame=
> > > >>      {level="0",addr="0x00003db0",fp="0xbffff2c0",......
> > > 
> > > 0xbffff2c0 should not be the value of $fp but the value of "frame at..." in
> > > 'info frame`?
> > 
> > In fact, it's like that it will be the "frame at" address.
> Daniel, I cannot parse this sentence, and consequently I cannot figure
> out what are you saying in general.

Replace like with likely and it has slightly more intelligible grammar.

> > But I don't
> > think it would be wise to architect that into the interface; I think I
> > explained why earlier, but if not, it's because this is a touchy
> > internal interface for GDB.  If you want to display it to the user, you
> > might want something different - either explicitly the $sp, or
> > explictly the architectural $fp register, or explicitly the call frame
> > address.  If you want to use it in a frontend, then all we should offer
> > is an opaque ID for equality testing, IMHO.
> Are you saying that the "frame at ..." part in the CLI output is
> meaningless for users?  If so, why do we show it at all?

It isn't completely meaningless.  However, it's highly system specific,
and (as Nick noticed) it has changed before.

Daniel Jacobowitz

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]