This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Archer 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: uw_install_context() and GDB

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Phil Muldoon wrote:
The first was modifying the "next" command to place an implementation-internal breakpoint in __cxa_begin_catch, and comparing frames. (Is the frame that "next" was performed on above the current-frame? If so stop). But this method would skip any user-written destructors in the _UA_CLEANUP_PHASE. If any user-written destructors exist in the frame "next" was run on, or any frame inbetween that and the exception-handler, then the inferior should be stopped there - at the first one. This would be the proper behaviour for "next". Placing a breakpoint in __cxa_begin_catch would skip those. So I do not think this method is suitable.

I think you have to justify that assertion ("this would be the proper

Quite right. That sentence really should have been prefixed by "In my opinion" ;)

Why would it be?  They're like signal handlers or
function calls; breakpoints in them would stop the program, but I
don't see a reason "next" should see them

I take your point well. But if these are user-written destructors, and they are being executed on the journey to the exception handler, shouldn't "next" return control here? There is a little bit of irony. In a conversation I was having recently, I was making a case of "next" over a throw always returning control at the corresponding "catch", and ignoring the destructors. I changed my mind when it was suggested that significant and important work relevant to the code a user has written happen in destructors. But quite right, I glossed over this, and should make room for conversation on it.



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