From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18329 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2006 21:17:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 18321 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2006 21:17:43 -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; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:17:39 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GlB5W-0003pB-Ka; Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:17:30 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: andrzej zaborowski , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] interpreter-exec error path Message-ID: <20061117211730.GB13961@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , andrzej zaborowski , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17669.56882.234172.157983@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060916040928.GC7673@nevyn.them.org> <17675.50442.412240.290782@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17675.50442.412240.290782@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: 2006-11/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2 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