From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21847 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2008 22:17:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 21833 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jan 2008 22:17:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:16:56 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F5798217; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:16:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35A498214; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:16:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JKhiH-0001q6-Tn; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:16:53 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:27:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Make mi_cmd_break_insert exception-safe. Message-ID: <20080131221653.GB6715@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200801271715.08542.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200801271715.08542.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00878.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 05:15:07PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > The gdb_breakpoint function, as I understand it, was supposed to be part of > libgdb interface, defined in gdb.h header. However, libgdb is not even close to > being usable, and when I've asked about using gdb as a library some time ago, the > response was that it's too hard to do, and it's no longer a goal. Therefore, > I think it makes no sense to keep gdb_breakpoint non-throwing. There is a convention that the gdb_* functions don't throw, though. It's very confusing what does and does not throw in GDB. Before this patch, did gdb_breakpoint actually throw? If so, would fixing it by using try/catch inside gdb_breakpoint fix this bug too? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery