This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA 08/10] Move some code later in backtrace_command_1
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:18:17 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFA 08/10] Move some code later in backtrace_command_1
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=palves at redhat dot com
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 473577A167
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 473577A167
- References: <20170425194113.17862-1-tom@tromey.com> <20170425194113.17862-9-tom@tromey.com>
On 04/25/2017 08:41 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> PR backtrace/15584 notes that some code in backtrace_command_1 is not
> useful when frame filters are in use.
Doesn't the "info verbose on" bit affect frame filters too?
Particularly the:
"Need to do this in a
separate pass so that "Reading in symbols for xxx" messages
don't screw up the appearance of the backtrace."
... remark.
Not sure I fully understand whether that "info verbose" code
makes sense nowadays, though. It doesn't seem to be documented
in the manual.
In any case, if you need that, then I guess it'd be done
somewhere inside the frame filters code, I suppose?
With that in mind, this LGTM.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves