From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16431 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2009 18:56:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 16394 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Sep 2009 18:56:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:56:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n89IuG88028689; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 14:56:16 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n89IuFAP004608; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 14:56:16 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n89IuDHS013023; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 14:56:13 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id A9917378182; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:56:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: next/finish/etc -vs- exceptions References: <200907241825.41764.pedro@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:56:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200907241825.41764.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:25:41 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00256.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" =3D=3D Pedro Alves writes: Tom> I also haven't yet tried to make the longjmp code work like the Tom> exception code. =C2=A0I'd like to see Pedro's glibc/longjmp fix go in = first, Tom> so I can have a reasonable chance of testing any changes here. [...] Pedro> I think if we have a chance of looking at what needs addressing Pedro> for longjmp first (and split your changes that concern with longjmp Pedro> too), we will have a better result. Would you mind that? I'll try = to Pedro> get at it again this weekend, and post what I have, and finish up Pedro> the review I had already started (looking at the new patch, of cours= e). Just a friendly reminder... I think this is still blocked, pending your longjmp patch. Tom