Re: [RFC] -thread-info new command

[Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>]

> > Does your statement defeat the logic of my suggestion?

> Honestly, I'm not sure.  I looked at your patch again; I don't think I
> understand why you want to change gdb_breakpoint.

So the errors get caught in mi_execute_command (since they are not front end
errors) as I've already said.

 > > I think that the do_captured_* functions should have return type enum
 > > gdb_rc not int.
 > 
 > Yes, it would be nice - but unfortunately they can't, since
 > catch_exceptions_with_msg requires the function to return an int.

We must be reading a different book:

/* Print a list of thread ids currently known, and the total number of
   threads. To be used from within catch_errors. */
static int
do_captured_list_thread_ids (struct ui_out *uiout, void *arg)
{
  ...
  do_cleanups (cleanup_chain);
  ui_out_field_int (uiout, "number-of-threads", num);
  return GDB_RC_OK;
}

I think your ChangeLog entry should have read:

	* thread.c (gdb_list_thread_ids): Likewise.
	(gdb_thread_select): Likewise.

 >...
 > > More generally though, re my patch, does make_cleaunp work on
 > > deprecated_set_gdb_event_hooks?  Do you think it's a good idea to
 > > distinguish between user errors, e.g, "No stack." and front end errors,
 > > e.g, "-var-delete: Usage: [-c] EXPRESSION."?
 > 
 > It would be nice if front ends could separately detect "the front end
 > has done something silly" -I do not think it's a big deal, but it
 > might make correct front ends easier to write, and that would help
 > everybody.

It would also help stop bugs in front ends from being reported on the gdb
mailing list.


-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob