Re: [FYI] Inlining support, rough patch

[Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>]

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:00:56 -0600
> 
> Resurrecting an old thread...
> 
> Mark> It's the ID construction that I'm worried about.  It is the very core
> Mark> of the unwinding code.  I really think your diff violates the most
> Mark> fundamental principle of this bit of code and in that way, makes it
> Mark> much harder to understand it.
> 
> Daniel> I don't understand what you mean when you say this makes the generic
> Daniel> code any harder to understand.  Can you point to lines for me?
> 
> [...]
> 
> Daniel> If you can think of a way to do this that doesn't involve complicating
> Daniel> the generic unwind machinery - exactly what we're both trying to avoid
> Daniel> - I'll give it another shot.
> 
> Mark, could you answer Daniel's questions?  This patch has been in
> limbo since last July.  I'd like to at least know what needs to be
> done to move forward on this.

A bit hard after more than 9 months :(.

IIRC Daniels diff really turned the whole stack unwinding upside down.

> FWIW, we're shipping this in Archer.  I think other organizations are
> shipping it as well.  Debugging inlined functions nicely is a
> frequently requested feature; I answer questions about it on irc at
> least once a week.

I agree that it is an important feature.  I'll see if I can wrap my
head around this again now that I'm not in an airport every other
week again.