This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] interpreter-exec error path
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>
- Cc: andrzej zaborowski <balrog at zabor dot org>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:17:30 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] interpreter-exec error path
- References: <17669.56882.234172.157983@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060916040928.GC7673@nevyn.them.org> <17675.50442.412240.290782@kahikatea.snap.net.nz>
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 09:34:02PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > Yes, I think this does what Andrew Cagney intended but the underlying
> > > interpreter has already signalled the exception so I think it could be
> > > handled normally:
> >
> > There's a FIXME saying that the underlying interpreter shouldn't do
> > this, if I understand your suggestion properly:
> >
> > /* FIXME: cagney/2005-01-13: This shouldn't be needed. Instead the
> > caller should print the exception. */
> > exception_print (gdb_stderr, e);
> >
> > > Taking things a step further, I see that mi_interpreter_exec always
> > > returns exception_none so cli_interpreter_exec could do the same (patch
> > > below). The command interpreter-exec can handle a list of commands, this
> > > would mean if the first fails, GDB will still handle the subsequent
> > > commands. This is currently true for mi e.g
> >
> > And indeed, this makes me ask why this would be a desirable feature.
>
> It's like make and "make -k" but I guess the former is the preferred/default
> behaviour.
>
> > We stop executing a CLI script if one command fails; I think the same
> > should apply here?
>
> OK, I'll do that if you're agreeable and remove exception_print so each error
> only gets reported once.
Hi Nick,
I had this message flagged in my inbox, but reading it, I can't
remember why. Did you need anything from me in this thread?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery