From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18117 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2003 18:33:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18105 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2003 18:33:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2003 18:33:00 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77A4D2B8F; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:32:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FD766D9.5080908@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:33:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Ada's throw/catch; Was: [RFC] Unexpected automatic language switch - get_frame_language() References: <20031205224807.GE716@gnat.com> <20031210174750.GA7669@nevyn.them.org> <20031210181030.GI1296@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00298.txt.bz2 > Before I start the discussion and maybe cause us to change our > implementation, what is the feeling of the GDB maintainers in > general. Suppose for instance that we would submit our current > implementation for inclusion, would it be approved, or refused? > Right now, here is our change against breakpoint.c relevant to this > functionality: Given that GDB already has an established generic documented and "working" throw/catch mechanism, I'm not sure that there are advantages to be had in adding a second. While Act would certainly benefit, I don't know that the same can be argued for GDB as a whole. Andrew