From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30894 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2006 09:36:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 30884 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Sep 2006 09:36:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:36:34 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p202-124-120-73.snap.net.nz [202.124.120.73]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053337B77E7; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:36:31 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id B4142BE3A6; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:34:05 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17675.50442.412240.290782@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:36:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: andrzej zaborowski , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] interpreter-exec error path In-Reply-To: <20060916040928.GC7673@nevyn.them.org> References: <17669.56882.234172.157983@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060916040928.GC7673@nevyn.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.50.13 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-09/txt/msg00085.txt.bz2 > > 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. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob