From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1672 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2004 15:36:10 -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 1665 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2004 15:36:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Jan 2004 15:36:09 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AdWm1-00025o-Bx for ; Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:36:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix do_cleanups if oldchain is NULL Message-ID: <20040105153609.GA7952@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3FE0C502.7020408@redhat.com> <3FF59719.7020908@gnu.org> <20040102175138.GB11549@nevyn.them.org> <3FF98396.3060700@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FF98396.3060700@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:32:38AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >How about making NULL an internal error then, as below? I think we > >should either do that or document its behavior, and it seems > >accident-prone. > > I thought about that, and would likely be ok if there were only normal > simple cleanups. Its the "other" (i.e., final, run, exec, ...) cleanups > that trouble me. Right you are, infcmd.c:run_command: do_run_cleanups (NULL); We could put the internal error in do_cleanups instead, but I'm not sure that it's worthwhile. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer