Re: [PATCH] interpreter-exec error path

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 09:34:02PM +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. 
> 
> 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.

Hi Nick,

I had this message flagged in my inbox, but reading it, I can't
remember why.  Did you need anything from me in this thread?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery