From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12466 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2013 15:55:35 -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 12454 invoked by uid 89); 19 Aug 2013 15:55:34 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:55:33 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MRS00100C6F4200@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:54:39 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MRS00064C71KQB0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:54:38 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:55:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFC] Add new commands to windows native code. In-reply-to: <"000001ce9ce9$d4669a10$7d33ce30$@muller"@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> To: Pierre Muller Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83eh9pllp5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <"001f01ce9413$72450b20$56cf2160$@muller"@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <83d2pnrmbn.fsf@gnu.org> <"000001ce9ce9$d4669a10$7d33ce30$@muller"@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00510.txt.bz2 > From: "Pierre Muller" > Cc: > Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:38:53 +0200 > > > . catch exception [NAME] > > Currently catch exception is an ADA specific catch type... Aren't C++ exceptions supported as well? > It seems that 'catch catch regex ' > could be used... Less user-friendly, but also fine, IMO. > But currently all exception are converted into signals inside > windows-nat.c code... > So that implementing your suggestion would basically mean > that the Windows API exception would not be converted into > signals anymore... Your changes, OTOH, would cause the inferior be stopped twice for the same reason, AFAIU. I don't know what is worse. > This is a huge change, which should probably not be enabled > by default, no? I agree, but then catchpoints are never set by default, only by user command. So I see no usability problem here. > But frankly speaking, I fear that I will never be able to > implement such a feature :( > The list of stuff I wrote for windows OS GDB support > that was never integrated into main-line is already quite huge... I can hardly believe that it would be much harder than the 3 options you suggested. > I did look a little a the catching code inside break-catch-throw.c > but I still didn't even get how the exception number is supposed to > be passed to the loop that looks through the list of all breakpoints > to see if there is a match... Maybe someone of the senior maintainers could help out here?