From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32028 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2011 16:31:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 32017 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Mar 2011 16:31:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:31:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2HGVTxM019554 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:31:29 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2HGVRtx014636 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:31:29 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2HGVRIE028022; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:31:27 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p2HGVQgx028017; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:31:26 +0100 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:25:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [unavailable regs/locals, 01/11] registers status upwards Message-ID: <20110317163126.GA27867@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <201102221327.51130.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201103160012.50971.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110317150627.GA15201@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201103171621.48928.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201103171621.48928.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00900.txt.bz2 On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:21:48 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > Another key point, is that not putting a TRY_CATCH were it would matter > is fragile as well. The whole operation is cancelled. It makes the whole > user experience _worse_. Seing 0s is worse than at places, > but it's much better than not seeing _anything_ at all. E.g, the MI > command I showed upthread. Here is probably the major disagreement. People bugreport when they see error while they give up when the program does weird things they cannot understand. > How about proceeding as is, and I'll revisit later if necessary? > This is just _one_ detail in the whole story afterall. I do not want to block anything. But in such case a review does not make sense as it is easier to put there compiler and/or exception checks than to verify each statement by humans. Thanks, Jan