[PATCHv5 0/2] gdb: Change how frames are selected for 'frame' and 'info frame'.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 12:03:54 +0100
> From: Andrew Burgess <andrew.burgess@embecosm.com>
> Cc: Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>,
> 	Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> 
> Eli:
> 
>   In this message:
>       https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-07/msg00670.html
>   Philippe highlighted that you might have some reservations about
>   this patch series, which I think is currently the main blocker for
>   this patch getting approval.
> 
>   In the thread started here:
>       https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-05/msg00299.html
>   and ending here:
>       https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00142.html
>   you did review and approve one of the original patch variants, which
>   is most like the "level" variant of the patch submitted here:
>       https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-08/msg00337.html
> 
>   I would be really grateful if you could let me know your current
>   thoughts on this patch, are you happy to have the "level" variant
>   merged based on your previous approval, or has you position changed?

I just said

  I question the wisdom of changing such veteran terminology.

And then:

  If we are going to make this change, then I would suggest to keep the
  index entry, _add_ to it an entry about "frame level", and explain
  here what that level is, something like this:

    @value{GDBN} labels each existing stack frame with a @dfn{level}, a
    number that is zero for the innermost frame, one for the frame that
    called it, and so on upward.  These level numbers give you a way of
    designating stack frames in @value{GDBN} commands.

IOW, I urged us to think whether we really want the change (and
invited others to comment).  Then I had a small suggestion for if we
do make the change.

That is all.  It was never my intention to block the patch, and if my
words were unfortunate enough to be interpreted that way, I apologize.

Thanks.