Re: [RFA]: issue warnings for frame offenses

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>]

Jeff Johnston wrote:
> 
> Sounds fine.  I'll start working on it.  I assume you meant 
> non_fatal_error below for the new function that issues the quit.
>

Ignore my question above.  I understand what is asked for now.  I was reading 
QUIT as being QUIT the current operation, but you mean it to be more severe so 
what you say below makes sense.

-- Jeff J.

>> - add a new fatal_error():
>>
>> There should be a new error mechanism that throws a QUIT instead of 
>> ERROR.  Code should not normally be catching QUIT (much unfortunately 
>> does).  A fatal error is things like: syntax error; no target; lost 
>> target.  Things like a memory access violation though are not fatal.
>>
>> - think about stopping code catching and then discarding QUIT
>> Grep for RETURN_MASK_ALL in the sources - it should be 
>> RETURN_MASK_ERROR :-/
>>
>> - modify the backtrace code to catch ERROR, but not QUIT
>>
>> Along the lines of Joel's suggestion, the backtrace command should 
>> catch ERROR (but should not catch QUIT).  That way simple problems 
>> don't abort the script but fatal ones do.
>>
>>