From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfc] Return old cleanup when doing a restore_cleanups()
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 08:14:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B7A91E1.8050001@cygnus.com>
References: <3B782A6A.2050207@cygnus.com> <1010815003647.ZM30617@ocotillo.lan>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00177.html

> At the moment, the only caller of restore_cleanups() is
> catch_errors(), so the assert could just as easily go in
> restore_cleanups() without causing any more breakage than placing the
> assert in catch_errors().

Oops, didn't notice that detail.

> If all (future) callers of restore_cleanups are supposed to drain the
> cleanup chain first, then I think the assert belongs in
> restore_cleanups().  If you think there might be a good reason to
> violate this rule, then the assert belongs in the caller.  Personally,
> I'd rather see the assert go in restore_cleanups() until someone can
> demonstrate a good reason for not draining the cleanup chain.

Yes, it is more being convinced that having the assertion there won't 
mysteriously break something ... :-/

I guess we're sufficiently early in the 5.2 release cycle to do it the 
right way.  I'll suck it and see.

Patch withdrawn.

	Andrew