From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-82831-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 15495 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2011 03:49:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 15486 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2011 03:49:31 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_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; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 03:49:17 +0000
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p753n44d006961	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:49:04 -0400
Received: from psique ([10.3.112.5])	by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p753mvgn019047;	Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:49:00 -0400
From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
Cc: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Eliminate tui_command_loop
References: <201108042110.45405.pedro@codesourcery.com>	<4E3B0358.6000307@br.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 03:49:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <4E3B0358.6000307@br.ibm.com> (Thiago Jung Bauermann's message of	"Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:38:48 -0300")
Message-ID: <m3bow4cyc7.fsf@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2

Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com> writes:

> On 08/04/2011 05:10 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> which predates TRY_CATCH by a few years:
>>   <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2005-01/msg00064.html>
>
> Since you brought the subject: I noticed a while ago that there are some
> places which declare the exception variable used in TRY_CATCH without
> the volatile keyword. At the time I changed all such occurrences to volatile
> but there was no effect in the testsuite so I didn't bother submitting the
> patch upstream. Is this important?

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2016.html

IMHO (and if you still have this patch in hands) this is important, even
if just for keeping the standard :-).