From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21520 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2007 03:26:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 21512 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Mar 2007 03:26:20 -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; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:26:18 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (157.61.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.61.157]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 716A33D9FAB; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:26:15 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id C77574F72E; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:26:13 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17919.21588.93918.661753@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:26:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Denis PILAT , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [RFC] -thread-info new command In-Reply-To: <20070320031409.GA7336@caradoc.them.org> References: <45FE9E6A.3030906@st.com> <17919.15500.439138.600411@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <17919.20575.286260.761826@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070320031409.GA7336@caradoc.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.95.6 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 > > It looks like I've misremembered, as the patch I've quoted is for > > mi_cmd_break_insert and not gdb_thread_select. However, perhaps we should > > still resolve the issue first. > > Yes, I agree. Is that the latest patch posted, if you know offhand? I had thought it was, but no. You replied with: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-11/msg00185.html: It seems pretty clear to me that the patch which switched things to return the result of catch_exceptions_with_msg was wrong. The functions are defined to return an enum gdb_rc. Can't we make them do that again? Simple, obviously correct. but I could only come up with: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-11/msg00208.html which didn't seem that simple and is probably not correct -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob