From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7848 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2011 20:39:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 7745 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Aug 2011 20:39:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e24smtp02.br.ibm.com (HELO e24smtp02.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.86) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:39:09 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.110]) by e24smtp02.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p74LqXps016263 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 18:52:33 -0300 Received: from d24av05.br.ibm.com (d24av05.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.44]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p74KfNRE1921260 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:41:25 -0300 Received: from d24av05.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av05.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p74Kcmfv017795 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:38:49 -0300 Received: from [9.18.199.231] ([9.18.199.231]) by d24av05.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p74KcmBd017787; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:38:48 -0300 Message-ID: <4E3B0358.6000307@br.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:39:00 -0000 From: Thiago Jung Bauermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Eliminate tui_command_loop References: <201108042110.45405.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201108042110.45405.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00086.txt.bz2 On 08/04/2011 05:10 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > which predates TRY_CATCH by a few years: > Since you brought the subject: I noticed a while ago that there are some places which declare the exception variable used in TRY_CATCH without the volatile keyword. At the time I changed all such occurrences to volatile but there was no effect in the testsuite so I didn't bother submitting the patch upstream. Is this important? -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center