Reviewed/approved by Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>

	2005-08-01  Fred Fish  <fnf@specifix.com>
	* stack.c (parse_frame_specification_1): Remove use of obsolete
	SETUP_ARBITRARY_FRAME macro.

diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog
index 7f17909..4e124de 100644 (file)
--- a/gdb/ChangeLog
+++ b/gdb/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2005-08-01  Fred Fish  <fnf@specifix.com>
+
+       * stack.c (parse_frame_specification_1): Remove use of obsolete
+       SETUP_ARBITRARY_FRAME macro.
+
 2005-08-01  Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@codesourcery.com>
 
        * dwarf2-frame.c (read_signed_leb128): Handle values that do not

diff --git a/gdb/stack.c b/gdb/stack.c
index 6bbfb82..5a0c1f9 100644 (file)
--- a/gdb/stack.c
+++ b/gdb/stack.c
@@ -817,22 +817,6 @@ parse_frame_specification_1 (const char *frame_exp, const char *message,
       struct frame_id id = frame_id_build_wild (addrs[0]);
       struct frame_info *fid;
 
-      /* If SETUP_ARBITRARY_FRAME is defined, then frame
-        specifications take at least 2 addresses.  It is important to
-        detect this case here so that "frame 100" does not give a
-        confusing error message like "frame specification requires
-        two addresses".  This of course does not solve the "frame
-        100" problem for machines on which a frame specification can
-        be made with one address.  To solve that, we need a new
-        syntax for a specifying a frame by address.  I think the
-        cleanest syntax is $frame(0x45) ($frame(0x23,0x45) for two
-        args, etc.), but people might think that is too much typing,
-        so I guess *0x23,0x45 would be a possible alternative (commas
-        really should be used instead of spaces to delimit; using
-        spaces normally works in an expression).  */
-#ifdef SETUP_ARBITRARY_FRAME
-      error (_("No frame %s"), paddr_d (addrs[0]));
-#endif
       /* If (s)he specifies the frame with an address, he deserves
         what (s)he gets.  Still, give the highest one that matches.
         (NOTE: cagney/2004-10-29: Why highest, or outer-most, I don't