From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4024 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2009 17:38:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 4016 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jul 2009 17:38:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:38:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6OHaGoA032383; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:36:16 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n6OHaECQ008777; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:36:14 -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 n6OHaDIb017625; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:36:13 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8D4843782AF; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:36:12 -0600 (MDT) To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: next/finish/etc -vs- exceptions References: <200907241825.41764.pedro@codesourcery.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:18:00 -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/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00603.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> As it is in your patch, you're reusing the longjmp paths in Pedro> infrun.c and co., but it may end up that's not a good choice. Yeah, I wondered about that. I did it this way because the user functionality is really similar; but if the implementation needs diverge then it is not a good approach. Pedro> I also thought at the time that there were some things in that Pedro> patch (I didn't look at this new one yet), that should be split Pedro> into independent changes, like changes to insert longjmp breakpoints Pedro> in a few commands that didn't had them inserted (but memory is a Pedro> bit vague by now though, I can't remember exact details). Yes, that would make sense. I can do that. (And, your recollection is correct here.) Pedro> I did brush Pedro> up my only-follow-longjmp-if-going-outer patches a bit and I was Pedro> aiming at posting it before you had updated your patch, but obviously Pedro> I failed. :-/ No problem! 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? Not at all. I'll wait to see that and then see what changes and/or splits my patch needs. Tom