Re: [RFC] Move the frame zero PC check earlier

[Jim Blandy <jimb at codesourcery dot com>]

Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:
>> Nobody has written us saying they want to choose whether GDB treats a
>> zero return address as indicating the end of the stack.  Rather, many
>> users have written us complaining that GDB displays extra frames at
>> the end of well-formed, non-corrupt stacks.  And over the course of
>> the what seems like dozens of embedded GDB ports I've debugged since
>> 1997, I've come across the same behavior many times myself.
>
> If we're sure that zero return address actually signals the end of the
> stack, then indeed we should not print the extra frame.  I'm not
> arguing with that.  But that's defenitely 

You've said a few times that you agree GDB should support this
convention where it is followed.  Dan's patch accomplishes that, but
in a way you don't like.  Do you have a suggestion on how it should be
done?  Dan reluctantly suggested a gdbarch flag; what do you think of
that?