frame is a SIGTRAMP_FRAME or a DUMMY_FRAME, then the next frame
was not entered as the result of a call, and we want to get the
line containing fi->pc. */
- sal =
- find_pc_line (fi->pc,
- fi->next != NULL
- && !(get_frame_type (fi->next) == SIGTRAMP_FRAME)
- && !(get_frame_type (fi->next) == DUMMY_FRAME));
+ find_frame_sal (fi, &sal);
location_print = (source == LOCATION
|| source == LOC_AND_ADDRESS
if (fi == NULL)
error ("Invalid frame specified.");
- sal = find_pc_line (fi->pc,
- fi->next != NULL
- && !(get_frame_type (fi->next) == SIGTRAMP_FRAME)
- && !(get_frame_type (fi->next) == DUMMY_FRAME));
+ find_frame_sal (fi, &sal);
func = get_frame_function (fi);
+ /* FIXME: cagney/2002-11-28: Why bother? Won't sal.symtab contain
+ the same value. */
s = find_pc_symtab (fi->pc);
if (func)
{
if (fi->next || calling_frame_info)
puts_filtered ("\n");
if (s)
- printf_filtered (" source language %s.\n", language_str (s->language));
+ printf_filtered (" source language %s.\n",
+ language_str (s->language));
#ifdef PRINT_EXTRA_FRAME_INFO
PRINT_EXTRA_FRAME_INFO (fi);
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);
}