[rfa:symtab] deprecate inside_entry_func

Daniel Jacobowitz drow@mvista.com
Fri Nov 21 21:04:00 GMT 2003


On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 03:55:52PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 03:46:46PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>What Kevin and I have both repeatedly suggested, I think, is:
> >>>  - Do not deprecate inside_entry_func; fix it if you don't like the
> >>>    way it is implemented.  Change the implementation.
> >>>  - Deprecate entry_func_lowpc and entry_func_highpc (there's a typo in
> >>>    your changelog, two lowpc's) if you really want to deprecate
> >>>    something.
> >
> >>
> >>Please point me at a legitimate use of this function.
> >
> >
> >Please read my previous response to you in this thread, in which I did
> >so at length.
> >  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-11/msg00158.html
> 
> That's not what I'm asking.
> 
> With the call to inside_entry_func removed, from get_prev_frame, can you 
> point me at any remainng _legitimate) uses of that function?

The other call to it in legacy_frame_chain_valid, which wants to know
the same thing?  I imagine the third caller, in frv-tdep.c, is bogus
and could be removed somehow.  But if it's going to be left there then
it seems reasonable to update it also.

Conceptually the patch you just posted sees to be:
 - Change the implementation of inside_entry_func
 - Inline the new inside_entry_func into the one caller you're fond of
 - Add a deprecated copy of the old implementation for the other
   callers

>From the man who is always telling us how unimportant performance is
compared to clarity, I don't see the point.  Also, this leaves an old
implementation and a new implementation around for no visible reason.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer



More information about the Gdb-patches mailing list