From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20417 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2006 04:09:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 20408 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Sep 2006 04:09:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:09:34 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GORUe-00025H-4O; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:09:28 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: andrzej zaborowski , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] interpreter-exec error path Message-ID: <20060916040928.GC7673@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , andrzej zaborowski , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17669.56882.234172.157983@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17669.56882.234172.157983@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00083.txt.bz2 On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:07:46AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > 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. We stop executing a CLI script if one command fails; I think the same should apply here? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery