From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21989 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 14:23:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 21966 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 14:23:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:23:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3IENEnm026414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:23:14 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3IENCH3018501; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:23:13 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8ECE4F.1070004@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:25:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [RFA] Ensure result of make_cleanup is never NULL. References: <20120416144011.GH2852@adacore.com> <4F8C3350.1030601@redhat.com> <4F8E88E3.1010900@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00570.txt.bz2 On 04/18/2012 03:02 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 04/18/2012 01:43 AM, Doug Evans wrote: >> >>> btw, I thought about making cleanup_sentinel const here, for a bit of >>> extra robustness. >> >> >> Won't that mean you'd need to cast the constness out in most, if >> not all places that use it? Well, aren't all places using the sentinel, using it throught the macro? What does this make more robust? > > --- cleanups.c= 2012-04-17 12:02:38.000000000 -0700 > +++ cleanups.c 2012-04-18 06:59:46.000000000 -0700 > @@ -50,10 +50,10 @@ struct cleanup > [though this won't catch errors that a value of, say, > ((struct cleanup *) -1) will] > - displays as something useful when printed in gdb. */ > -static struct cleanup cleanup_sentinel; > +static const struct cleanup cleanup_sentinel; > > /* Handy macro to use when referring to cleanup_sentinel. */ > -#define CLEANUP_SENTINEL (&cleanup_sentinel) > +#define CLEANUP_SENTINEL ((struct cleanup *) &cleanup_sentinel) > > /* Chain of cleanup actions established with make_cleanup, > to be executed if an error happens. */ -- Pedro Alves