+2002-11-28 Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>
+
+ * stack.c (get_selected_block): In-line get_current_block.
+ * frame.h (get_current_block): Delete declaration.
+ * blockframe.c (get_current_block): Delete function.
+
2002-11-28 Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
* gdbarch.sh (DEPRECATED_USE_GENERIC_DUMMY_FRAMES): Rename
return block_for_pc (pc);
}
-struct block *
-get_current_block (CORE_ADDR *addr_in_block)
-{
- CORE_ADDR pc = read_pc ();
-
- if (addr_in_block)
- *addr_in_block = pc;
-
- return block_for_pc (pc);
-}
-
CORE_ADDR
get_pc_function_start (CORE_ADDR pc)
{
extern struct block *get_frame_block (struct frame_info *,
CORE_ADDR *addr_in_block);
-extern struct block *get_current_block (CORE_ADDR *addr_in_block);
-
extern struct block *get_selected_block (CORE_ADDR *addr_in_block);
extern struct symbol *get_frame_function (struct frame_info *);
if (!target_has_stack)
return 0;
+ /* NOTE: cagney/2002-11-28: Why go to all this effort to not create
+ a selected/current frame? Perhaphs this function is called,
+ indirectly, by WFI in "infrun.c" where avoiding the creation of
+ an inner most frame is very important (it slows down single
+ step). I suspect, though that this was true in the deep dark
+ past but is no longer the case. A mindless look at all the
+ callers tends to support this theory. I think we should be able
+ to assume that there is always a selcted frame. */
+ /* gdb_assert (selected_frame != NULL); So, do you feel lucky? */
if (!selected_frame)
- return get_current_block (addr_in_block);
+ {
+ CORE_ADDR pc = read_pc ();
+ if (addr_in_block != NULL)
+ *addr_in_block = pc;
+ return block_for_pc (pc);
+ }
return get_frame_block (selected_frame, addr_in_block);
}