On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans <dje@google.com> writes:
>
> Doug> I will check this in in a few days if there are no objections.
> Doug> 2011-12-14  Doug Evans  <dje@google.com>
>
> Doug>   * exceptions.c (catcher_list_size): New function.
> Doug>   (last_message): Delete.
> Doug>   (exception_messages, exception_messages_size): New static globals.
> Doug>   (throw_it): Use exception_messages array to handle nested calls.
>
> It seems good to me.
>
> It was a little hard to understand why this was the right approach.
> Actually I am not 100% sure I have convinced myself.
> I think a comment explaining the motivating scenario would help.

The motivating scenario is when we call throw_it instead a cleanup due
to an earlier throw_it.
[Actually, for the case at hand there were multiple calls to throw_it
during the cleanup.]

How's this?

2011-12-15  Doug Evans  <dje@google.com>

        * exceptions.c (catcher_list_size): New function.
        (last_message): Delete.
        (exception_messages, exception_messages_size): New static globals.
        (throw_it): Use exception_messages array to handle nested calls.