This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
To: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:24:55 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames
References: <17075.21529.964955.923197@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050617230130.GB21178@nevyn.them.org> <20050617231425.GA22254@nevyn.them.org> <17075.30993.384316.356236@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050618015756.GA30430@nevyn.them.org>
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>

> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:57:57 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Not sure what we could add to the docs.  This is what's there:
>   If invoked without arguments, this command prints a backtrace for the
> whole stack.  If given two integer arguments, it shows the frames whose
> levels are between the two arguments (inclusive).  If the two arguments
> are equal, it shows the single frame at the corresponding level.

Is the actual/new behavior any different, and if so, how?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames
  - From: Nick Roberts

References:
- [PATCH] -stack-info-frames
  - From: Nick Roberts
- Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames
  - From: Nick Roberts
- Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]