From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16940 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2018 01:40:06 -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 16926 invoked by uid 89); 23 Apr 2018 01:40:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:533 X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 01:40:04 +0000 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w3N1dvC8029007 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 21:40:02 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9595E1E778; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 21:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BFD1E4F4; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 21:39:57 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 01:40:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove a cleanup from scm-frame.c Message-ID: X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.4 X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Mon, 23 Apr 2018 01:39:57 +0000 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-04/txt/msg00442.txt.bz2 On 2018-04-22 19:47, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi writes: > > Simon> This looks good to me at first glance. Do you know if scm > exceptions > Simon> (scm_throw) play well with C++, the destructors of the objects > in the > Simon> exited scopes will correctly be called? > > I don't believe so, which is why this patch introduces a new scope. > > Tom Ahh, I didn't catch that initially, and it makes sense with the comment. LGTM then! Simon