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/rfa(top.c)] catch_exceptions()
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:25:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B7ABE73.4010207@cygnus.com>
References: <3B783BC9.8030603@cygnus.com> <1010815165226.ZM31992@ocotillo.lan>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00182.html

> On Aug 13,  4:42pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> 
>> The attatched patch impements a successor to catch_errors() - 
>> catch_exceptions().
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Comments.  Any preference for the other.  Ok for top.c?
> 
> 
> I reviewed your patch and it looks fine to me.  I wonder though if
> it might not be better to implement catch_errors() in terms of
> catch_exceptions() in order to make sure that the new code gets
> thoroughly tested from the outset.

Thanks for the comments.  I thought about having catch_errors() just use 
catch_exceptions() (and not have the catcher() function).  Problem is, I 
don't see a correct way of doing this.  catch_exceptions() places very 
strict requirements on FUNC(),  catch_errors() doesn't have any (any 
return value is technically legal).  Consequently the assertion:

	gdb_assert (val >= 0);

can't be applied to catch_errors().

Anyway, the code is going to be tested ``almost'' from the outset :-) 
My next patch is to change the gdb_*() libgdb functions to use this.

	Andrew