From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19298 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2008 15:46:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 19289 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2008 15:46:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:45:52 +0000 Received: from zps35.corp.google.com (zps35.corp.google.com [172.25.146.35]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id m11Fjf3m004837 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 07:45:41 -0800 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wra37.prod.google.com [10.54.1.37]) by zps35.corp.google.com with ESMTP id m11Fjeoi029617 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 07:45:40 -0800 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 37so1042267wra.12 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:45:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.254.1 with SMTP id b1mr4122095wai.140.1201880739879; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:45:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.13.5 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 07:45:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:46:00 -0000 From: "Doug Evans" To: "Vladimir Prus" Subject: Re: [RFA] Make mi_cmd_break_insert exception-safe. Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <200802011749.42119.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200801271715.08542.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200802010953.47178.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080201142439.GA28860@caradoc.them.org> <200802011749.42119.vladimir@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-02/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 On Feb 1, 2008 6:49 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > On Friday 01 February 2008 17:24:39 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 09:53:46AM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > > So, why bother trying to make gdb_breakpoint non-throwing? I believe > > > any such change will be at least as complex as making mi_cmd_break_insert > > > exception-safe? If your concern is about gdb_ prefix, how about renaming > > > gdb_exception into 'set_breakpoint'? > > > > That's fine too. > > What about the following, then? Heh. Or rename the function. :-)