On Nov 19, 2:55pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
The mechanics of the change are obvious. The new function's name,
though, is not. The following names come to mind:
get_frame_base()
Hints that the address is some how associated with the frame's base.
Hopefully this conveys the notion that the address shouldn't change
throughout the lifetime of the frame.
get_frame_address()
Like get_frame_base() but without that strong association with the
frame's base. It does fit in well with the gdbarch methods
frame_locals_address() and frame_args_address() though.
get_frame_fp()
Would associate the address with the `frame-pointer'. I don't like
this one since, in the past, FP has been too closely associated to a
real register, and the register definitly changes across the lifetime of
the frame.
Preferences?
I think get_frame_base() is a good choice. I like get_frame_address()
too, but if using "base" somehow helps us to remember that this
address remains constant, then that's a good thing.
[...]
- (I guess) re-vamp the PPC so that get_frame_base() is constant through
out the lifetime of a frame.
Yes, I guess so. I had to think about this a while though -- the current
placement of ->frame makes a lot of sense.
Kevin