From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5767 invoked by alias); 17 May 2013 18:18:03 -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 5726 invoked by uid 89); 17 May 2013 18:18:02 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 May 2013 18:18:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4HIHwMH027624 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 May 2013 14:17:58 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4HIHviR001567; Fri, 17 May 2013 14:17:57 -0400 Message-ID: <51967454.7000306@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 18:18:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philippe Waroquiers CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: fix gdb_assert caused by 'catch signal ...' and fork References: <1368136582.30058.7.camel@soleil> <518D2C4F.8070102@redhat.com> <1368736234.2225.30.camel@soleil> In-Reply-To: <1368736234.2225.30.camel@soleil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00698.txt.bz2 On 05/16/2013 09:30 PM, Philippe Waroquiers wrote: >>> + (void) wait(NULL); >> Missing space before parens. (do you really need the cast?) > space added. > I added the cast to explicitely show that the return value is ignored. > I might instead not ignore it if you think this is needed/better. IMO, that's more noise than signal. We ignore return values in many many cases, and don't do that (including other wait calls in the testsuite). > I also added a comment in breakpoint.c, to explain why > the bp_loc_other locations are not removed. > > Ok to apply ? Looks good to me. Give it a couple days more, in case Doug or others wants to comment, and check it in then. Thanks, -- Pedro Alves