[patch RFC] Re: Notes on a frame_unwind_address_in_block problem

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 10:58:25PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Heh, well, if you do the mechanical frame_unwind_address_in_block()
> changes I'll do frame_func_unwind().
> 
> After that we can actually worry about about fixing things.
> 
> Deal?

Absolutely.  If you can hand me a patch which adds NORMAL_FRAME to
every call to frame_func_unwind, I'll do all the rest.  I'm pretty
sure all of the existing call sites are NORMAL_FRAME; there won't be a
SIGTRAMP_FRAME one until we split out two this_id functions for dwarf2.

I've got frame_unwind_address_in_block done locally.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery