From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20594 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2005 04:47:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20586 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jun 2005 04:47:28 -0000 Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 04:47:28 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p122-tnt2.snap.net.nz [202.124.108.122]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A26B53D576; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:47:24 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id 882DC62A99; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 05:48:21 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17069.4116.293354.462840@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 04:47:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] -data-list-changed-registers (Take 2) In-Reply-To: <20050613024022.GB9288@nevyn.them.org> References: <17053.38913.487990.775198@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603191326.GA538@nevyn.them.org> <17056.56149.181259.513462@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603223652.GA8203@nevyn.them.org> <17057.37727.725621.254956@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <17060.46539.131335.71422@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <17066.35303.833870.612064@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050613024022.GB9288@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00147.txt.bz2 > It looks like you're doing basically mi_out_rewind. There's already > several of these in captured_mi_execute_command. They don't catch this > because throw_exception takes us past them, all the way back to > mi_execute_command. > > If we add an mi_out_rewind call right here: > 1176 /* The command execution failed and error() was called > 1177 somewhere */ > > Then the problem goes away. So, basically, it just needed one line fix! Hmm...I think I'll look at the rest of the MI code before I start re-inventing it again. >From mi_cmd_data_list_register_values, I removed: if (!target_has_registers) { mi_error_message = xstrprintf ("mi_cmd_data_list_register_values: No registers."); return MI_CMD_ERROR; } Why do you think it should stay? Nick