need to define GDB/MI commands for Ada exception catchpoints

need to define GDB/MI commands for Ada exception catchpoints

[Joel Brobecker]

While discussing the MI output for Ada exception catchpoint hits,
I was wondering if we shouldn't just implement the MI equivalent
of our "catch exception" commands.

We have several commands:

  - catch exception [EXCEPTION_NAME]
    If used with a parameter, stop only when EXCEPTION_NAME is raised.
    Otherwise stop when any exception is raised.
    
  - catch exception unhandled
    Stop only if an unhandled exception is raised (thus eventually
    causing the termination of the task).

  - catch assert
    Stop if an assertion failure exception is raised.

There are other catch comments, and I am not sure that we have
implemented the MI equivalent on any of them. I couldn't find
the equivalent of "catch catch" or "catch throw", for instance.

Do we want to implement one MI command for all, or on MI command
for each type of catchpoint? As far as the Ada side is concerned,
I don't see a reason either way.

The most native design is just to have a 1:1 mapping between
the CLI command and the GDB/MI command, thus I'm proposing
(adding Ada in the name to make it clearer):

  -catch-ada-exception [EXCEPTION_NAME]
  -catch-unhandled-ada-exception
  -catch-ada-assert

There is no "prior art" that might compel us to choose certain
names or solutions in order to help compatibility, so we can do
whatever we think is best.

WDYT?

Thank you,
-- 
Joel

Re: need to define GDB/MI commands for Ada exception catchpoints

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:

Joel> While discussing the MI output for Ada exception catchpoint hits,
Joel> I was wondering if we shouldn't just implement the MI equivalent
Joel> of our "catch exception" commands.

Joel> The most native design is just to have a 1:1 mapping between
Joel> the CLI command and the GDB/MI command, thus I'm proposing
Joel> (adding Ada in the name to make it clearer):

I think this is fine.

Tom