From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 58806 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2018 14:19:03 -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 58789 invoked by uid 89); 18 Sep 2018 14:19:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:18:57 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B72785362; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:18:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70427E65E; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:18:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Remove munmap_listp_free_cleanup To: Tom Tromey References: <20180915222411.24764-1-tom@tromey.com> <20180915222411.24764-2-tom@tromey.com> <9642b747-7f95-fe5d-4cf3-b0d623ec40ae@redhat.com> <87bm8vvmzv.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:19:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87bm8vvmzv.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00632.txt.bz2 On 09/17/2018 10:21 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> I think we should wrap that in try/catch, because an infcall can be > Pedro> aborted/throw, and we're in a destructor. > > My latest version just ignores the exception. It seemed to me that > there isn't much the user can do about this, so a warning would be > un-helpful. If you agree, I'll push that. Or, I could have it emit a > warning if you think that's worthwhile. I agree. Thanks, Pedro Alves