From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2995 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2011 16:48:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 2930 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Mar 2011 16:47:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:47:55 +0000 Received: (qmail 13530 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2011 16:47:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 17 Mar 2011 16:47:53 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [unavailable regs/locals, 01/11] registers status upwards Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:15:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-27-generic; KDE/4.6.1; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <201102221327.51130.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201103171621.48928.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110317163126.GA27867@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20110317163126.GA27867@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201103171647.49410.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00901.txt.bz2 On Thursday 17 March 2011 16:31:26, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:21:48 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > > 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. Okay, thanks. I do respect and understand your point. I mainly disagree that the existing functions are the ones that should throw. I'll try to see about adding throwing variants (and using them where it makes sense) after the series is in. Not sure if anyone's wanting to further review the rest of the series, and/or the "graceful unwind termination" patch. I guess if I don't hear back, I'll apply the whole shebang tomorrow. -- Pedro Alves