From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30071 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2008 21:17:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 30058 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2008 21:17:33 -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; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:17:08 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C8898119; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:17:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBF79802C; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:17:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JWI1x-0006TG-2G; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:17:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Markus Deuling Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Michael Snyder , Mark Kettenis , uweigand@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: [patch] Add proper error message instead of gdb_assert Message-ID: <20080303211705.GA24855@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Markus Deuling , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Michael Snyder , Mark Kettenis , uweigand@de.ibm.com References: <47CC5332.3020700@de.ibm.com> <200803031955.m23Jt7cj019540@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <1204576131.19253.582.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080303203858.GA22316@caradoc.them.org> <47CC6990.7080400@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47CC6990.7080400@de.ibm.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: 2008-03/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:11:44PM +0100, Markus Deuling wrote: > What about the attached patch? It gives an error message in value_assign if you try to > access lval_register < 0. I guess this is much better for the user than a crashed GDB session. > > What do you think ? No. Both of these are internal errors in GDB. The internal error prompt already gives you the option to keep going if you want to. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery