Re: RFC: next/finish/etc -vs- exceptions

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:43:28 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I looked briefly at using breakpoint_ops, but it seems like it would
> require a bunch of new methods that are specific to just this
> breakpoint.  Maybe that is the way to go?

One day probably.


> Jan> It probably should not be placed in TP.  If we are
> Jan> stepping/until-ing/etc.  some code and execute some breakpoint's
> Jan> command list trying to step/next/etc.  again already from a
> Jan> different frame it won't work.  But this is a problem for most of
> Jan> the TP variables already so that's OK for this patch.  It should be
> Jan> carried over from the set-breakpoint to resume-breakpoint
> Jan> otherwise.
> 
> I thought that gdb did not support nested inferior-control commands like
> this.
> 
> It would be a nice feature.

I was thinking Phil was coding something like that with Python commands
attached to breakpoints.  It would need more fixes but I was just pointing
out an incompatibility also in this code.

With current GDB it seems OK to me.


> >> +if  { [compile_java_from_source ${srcdir}/$subdir/${srcfile} ${binfile} "-g"] != "" } {
> >> +    untested "Couldn't compile ${srcdir}/$subdir/${srcfile}"
> >> +    return -1
> 
> Jan> maybe prepare_for_testing?
> Jan> (nitpick)
> 
> I left this as-is.  compile_java_from_source does some extra processing
> right now.

I see now, sorry.


Thanks,
Jan