From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 114930 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2019 17:05:04 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 114921 invoked by uid 89); 3 Apr 2019 17:05:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=striped X-HELO: mail-wr1-f66.google.com Received: from mail-wr1-f66.google.com (HELO mail-wr1-f66.google.com) (209.85.221.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:05:03 +0000 Received: by mail-wr1-f66.google.com with SMTP id k17so22382677wrx.10 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 10:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f913:f700:56ee:75ff:fe8d:232b? ([2001:8a0:f913:f700:56ee:75ff:fe8d:232b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g84sm24557236wmf.25.2019.04.03.10.05.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Apr 2019 10:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 20/22] Replace throw_exception with throw in some cases To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20190227201849.32210-1-tom@tromey.com> <20190227201849.32210-21-tom@tromey.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <44c211d4-e221-76c9-8ede-2c628e992400@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:05:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190227201849.32210-21-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-04/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2 On 02/27/2019 08:18 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > This replaces throw_exception with "throw;" when possible. This was > written by script. The rule that is followed is that uses of the > form: > > catch (... &name) > { > ... > throw_exception (name); > } > > ... can be rewritten. It's possible (though IMO unlikely) that such a > case could be wrong, if the exception object is rewritten in the body > of the catch. (One option here might be to catch a const & instead.) I think this paragraph is stale, given that the current patchset catches by "const &" already. LGTM with that striped out. Thanks, Pedro Alves