This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
``trace frames'' vs ``frames'' vs ``trace snaps''
- To: GDB Discussion <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Subject: ``trace frames'' vs ``frames'' vs ``trace snaps''
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 15:36:18 -0500
If people thought that terms like state, target, thread, context were
being used inconsistently then, I think that I've just come across a
better one :-)
The tracepoint code refers to ``frames''. Thing is, that code is not
talking about stack frames but rather movie film frames. I believe the
motivation behind the choice of name was to convey to the user the idea
that tracepoints allowed them to ``animate'' their program (just like a
movie) by moving between frames.
I think that while all this is good in theory, in reality, it just leads
to confusion (it sure confuses me :-). I think it is already hard
enough trying discuss frames (as an abstraction of an ABI stack frame)
without having some alternative and totally orthogonal meaning to
I'd like address this by replacing [movie] frame with something like
``snap'', ``snapshot'', slide, ????