This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/rfc] FRAME_FP() -> get_frame_base()
- From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:38:09 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] FRAME_FP() -> get_frame_base()
- References: <3DDA9741.4050001@redhat.com>
On Nov 19, 2:55pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> The mechanics of the change are obvious. The new function's name,
> though, is not. The following names come to mind:
>
> get_frame_base()
> Hints that the address is some how associated with the frame's base.
> Hopefully this conveys the notion that the address shouldn't change
> throughout the lifetime of the frame.
>
> get_frame_address()
> Like get_frame_base() but without that strong association with the
> frame's base. It does fit in well with the gdbarch methods
> frame_locals_address() and frame_args_address() though.
>
> get_frame_fp()
> Would associate the address with the `frame-pointer'. I don't like
> this one since, in the past, FP has been too closely associated to a
> real register, and the register definitly changes across the lifetime of
> the frame.
>
> Preferences?
I think get_frame_base() is a good choice. I like get_frame_address()
too, but if using "base" somehow helps us to remember that this
address remains constant, then that's a good thing.
[...]
> - (I guess) re-vamp the PPC so that get_frame_base() is constant through
> out the lifetime of a frame.
Yes, I guess so. I had to think about this a while though -- the current
placement of ->frame makes a lot of sense.
Kevin