From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6600 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2012 18:43:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 6592 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Aug 2012 18:43:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,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; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:43:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q76IhROi020252 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:43:27 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q76Hs06o026011 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:54:01 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Phil Muldoon Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: fix PR 14386 References: <873946woli.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <501F9173.2040400@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <501F9173.2040400@redhat.com> (Phil Muldoon's message of "Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:42:11 +0100") Message-ID: <87ipcvkitj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00190.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Phil" == Phil Muldoon writes: Phil> It seems we wind-up printing two errors if the value returned to Phil> "children" is not an iterator. The "type error" exception that is Phil> printed with gdbpy_print_stack, and then the explicit error call we call Phil> right after. Not sure if this is because of an MI detail needing an Phil> "error" call, but it seems counter-intuitive to print two error Phil> messages for one exception. Maybe in a future patch we could extract Phil> the exception message from the exception and pass that to the GDB Phil> error call, or skip the error call completely. There's PR 12174, which is about this. The basic problem is that the exception conversion process is not loss-less. This is fixable by adding a bit of state to gdb exceptions, and a little hacking here and there; but nobody has attempted it comprehensively yet. Tom