Re: think-o: frame.c:find_saved_register() frame1 = get_prev_frame (frame1) backwards?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 03:50:41PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Feb 12,  2:46pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > (it dates back to prior to Red Hats CVS repository).  I think this is 
> > going the wrong way, looking in frame.h the doco indicates:
> > 
> >      /* Pointers to the next (down, inner) and previous (up, outer)
> >         frame_info's in the frame cache.  */
> >      struct frame_info *next; /* down, inner */
> >      struct frame_info *prev; /* up, outer */
> > 
> > and blockframe.c:get_prev_frame() returns the next ``up, outer'':
> > 
> >    /* If we have the prev one, return it */
> >    if (next_frame->prev)
> >      return next_frame->prev;
> > 
> > Given:
> > 
> > 	a() { b (); }
> > 
> > then it is b() that is saving registers used by a().  And b() is ``down, 
> > inner''.
> > 
> > confused,
> > Andrew
> 
> I don't know.  I've also gotten confused when staring at this code.  I
> don't find the terms "next", "down", or "inner" to be helpful at all
> when trying to figure it out either.  I think we ought to be referring
> to "callers" and "callees".

While they may not be 100% accurate (call dummies for instance, signal
handlers...) I strongly agree.  That's a much clearer term.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer