From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7313 invoked by alias); 6 May 2013 18:50:51 -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 7302 invoked by uid 89); 6 May 2013 18:50:50 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Mon, 06 May 2013 18:50:50 +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 r46IonEG000822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 6 May 2013 14:50:49 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-163.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.163]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r46Iol4P006993 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 6 May 2013 14:50:48 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Assert leftover cleanups in TRY_CATCH References: <20130501165750.GA453@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87obcoyot3.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20130506181832.GA23882@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 18:50:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20130506181832.GA23882@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Mon, 6 May 2013 20:18:32 +0200") Message-ID: <878v3symbc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00134.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> On Mon, 06 May 2013 19:56:56 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: >> I'm curious what you think about it. Jan> C++ exceptions solve it all, everyone knows it, it is simple, Jan> effective and at least in comparison with the existing GDB system Jan> it is foolproof. I know, and I agree that it would yield a better gdb, but I don't think it is going to happen. Given that, and the constant stream of cleanup bugs -- or potential bugs, relying on constant and careful review to catch them -- I think we have to examine second-best solutions. The cleanup checker is one attempt at this. I'm not sure everybody will accept the code changes it needs. Checking cleanups at runtime is another approach. Tom