Pedro Alves wrote:
> A Thursday 09 October 2008 02:18:08, Michael Snyder wrote:
>> Sorry, it's an artifact of the fact that I've been on a
>> fork for so long.  When I copied this code from finish_command,
>> the code that I copied had a similar call to internal_error.
>>
>> In fact, finish_command_continuation still does.
> 
> Yeah, the continuation has a check for `function != NULL',
> though.
> 
>> In fact, it's the same call that used to be in "finish_command".
>>
>> So what should it be?  Just "error"?
> 
> Ah, I think I see what's going on.  "finish" is not meaningful
> in the outermost frame, so, you'd get an error before reaching
> here, if you had no symbols.
> 
>  (gdb) finish
>  "finish" not meaningful in the outermost frame.
>  (gdb) reverse-finish
>  "finish" not meaningful in the outermost frame.
> 
> Is it possible to be at frame != #0 and not find a function?

I have no idea, I was just checking the return value
on general principals.

[sucking out "frame 0" discussion for separate reply]

>> I think I understand that you think it would be more "local"
>> to put the error here -- but is it worth it if it makes us
>> add complexity?
>>
>> finish_command already tests a number of things, including
>> whether we are async and (now) whether we are reverse, and
>> contains a number of error calls already.
> 
> No biggie with me.  Just thought you had signed up to do
> the function split.  ;-)

Well I didn't, but I will.  How does this look to you
(as an add-on to the present patch)?