Re: [RFA] Remove calls to inside_entry_file

[Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 10:39:22AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Andrew,
> >
> >On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 07:28:36PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>>Index: blockframe.c
> >>>===================================================================
> >>>RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/blockframe.c,v
> >
> >>
> >>For "blockframe.c", please leave it as is.  I'm already in enough 
> >>trouble for breaking old targets so I'd prefer to leave that part 
> >>untouched.  It would only affect out-of-date targets anyway.  The 
> >>up-to-date targets don't rely on that function.
> >
> >
> >I've checked in the frame.c patch but still, I don't understand this
> >decision.  So called out-of-date targets can easily add the
> >inside_entry_file() call to their frame_chain_valid() implementation
> >so removing this call from blockframe.c does not necessarily break
> >them.  Keeping this call in blockframe.c on the other hand breaks
> >some targets for which this call is plainly wrong.  So the logic would
> >imply to remove the call in favour of *all* targets able to run correctly.
> >
> >I've checked this patch (including the patch to i386_frame_chain_valid)
> >on four targets, xstormy16-elf, i686-pc-cygwin, i686-pc-linux and arm-elf.
> >The first two are running fine then, the latter two are totally
> >unaffected.
> 
> You want to run arm and i386 changes past their respective maintainers.

Misunderstanding?  I *tested* the above changes against xstormy16-elf,
i686-pc-cygwin, i686-pc-linux and arm-elf.  There are no arm-elf 
specific changes as well as no Linux specific changes.  There's a i386
patch which I've sent a few minutes ago.

Corinna

> Andrew
> 
> PS: Patch?

What patch are you talking about?

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Developer
Red Hat, Inc.
mailto:vinschen at redhat dot com