Re: RFC: Frame cache s not always available.

[James Ingham <jingham at cygnus dot com>]

Andrew Cagney writes:
 > Jim Kingdon wrote:
 > 
 > > 
 > > I don't see problems with this patch, except that I think I'd change
 > > "No stack." to "No frames.".  The former could be pretty confusing
 > > since it also means things like "there is no memory which GDB knows
 > > about".
 > 
 > Turns out that everywhere else ``No Stack.'' was being used.
 > (Besides, no-frames makes me think of web pages - is there a web browser
 > in GDBtk yet? :-)

I also prefer No Stack, I think it is more familiar to most users.

BTW: We have an HTML renderer, but don't have the ability to do GET's yet.
That is next on my list after the embedded NetHack easter egg.

Jim