Re: [RFA] let record_resume fail immediately on error

[Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>]

Hey guys,

I know I must be so anxious with this patch.  Sorry for it.

I have another patch follow this patch that is reviewing too.  Update
patch to fit with code always a hard thing for me.
If you can give me some comment about this idea, it will really help me a lot.
Thanks a lot.

Hui

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 14:39, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> What about following change:
> Change record_message to record_message (struct regcache *regcache,
> enum target_signal signal)
>
> static int
> record_message_wrapper_safe(struct regcache *regcache,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? enum target_signal signal)
> {
> ?struct record_message_args args;
>
> ?args.regcache = regcache;
> ?args.signal = signal;
> ?return catch_errors (record_message_wrapper, &args, NULL, RETURN_MASK_ALL);
> }
>
> static int
> record_message_wrapper (void *args)
> {
> ?return record_message (args->regcache, args->signal);
> }
>
> record_resume will call record_message.
> record_wait will call record_message_wrapper_safe
>
> Do you think it's OK?
>
> Thanks,
> Hui
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 01:58, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:
>>
>>>> I don't like use TRY_CATCH or catch_errors directly.
>>
>> Joel> I confess that I don't like catch_errors, because of the need to
>> Joel> artificially create a container type that contains all the function
>> Joel> parameters.
>>
>> In this code, we already have the container type and untyped trampoline
>> function.
>>
>> The problem I have with it is that there are direct calls to the untyped
>> trampoline function.
>>
>> I think the general approach for using catch_errors in gdb ought to be:
>>
>> * Have a properly-typed function that does all the work.
>> * If you need catch_errors, introduce a new type to hold the actual
>> ?arguments, and write an untyped trampoline function. ?Then, *only*
>> ?call this trampoline function via catch_errors.
>> * ... However, prefer TRY_CATCH in most cases, because it does not
>> ?require a new type and is generally safer (though not completely
>> ?safe).
>>
>> And FWIW, I think this rule is generally followed in practice.
>>
>> My reason for the above is that it is generally best to write a
>> type-safe program and let the compiler diagnose errors. ?We can't do
>> this for catch_errors, due to limitations in C, but we can at least
>> limit the damage.
>>
>>
>> Also, this patch introduces an argument indicating whether or not to
>> catch. ?This is bad, because it is confusing, but also particularly bad
>> in this case because the actual argument is always a constant.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>