Re: [patch/rfc] Switch to generic_func_frame_chain_valid()

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 06:20:22PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> This finishes off (I think) the FRAME_CHAIN_VALID debate.  It sets it to
> >> generic_func_frame_chain_valid().  That function being tweaked to handle
> >> both generic dummy frame and the old style frame cases.
> >>
> >> I'll commit it in a few days.
> >>
> >> Andrew
> >
> >
> > After this goes in, can we start switching existing targets?  That
> > seemed to be the real point of debate - file_frame_chain_valid versus
> > func_frame_chain_valid.  With the addition of a 'set' variable for
> > people who prefer the file_frame_chain_valid behavior, I don't see any
> > reason not to.
> 
> For natives (hmm, need a new name - UNIX like targets?) I think
> definitly and asap.  For more embedded targets, yes, with set - do any
> targets have custom frame-chain functions?

Yes, many.  Did you mean "custom frame-chain-valid functions"?
Yes, I believe there are some of those too.