From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23668 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2010 16:35:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 23561 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Dec 2010 16:35:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:35:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB2GZBM9005796 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:35:11 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oB2GZBnc008162; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:35:11 -0500 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 oB2GZAs0004290; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:35:10 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id E792B37817D; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:35:09 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: Marc Khouzam Cc: "'gdb-patches\@sourceware.org'" Subject: Re: [MI] Segfault using 'interpreter-exec mi' References: Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Marc Khouzam's message of "Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:53:55 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (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: 2010-12/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Marc" == Marc Khouzam writes: Marc> I got a segfault when using 'interpreter-exec mi' and getting an Marc> error result. I believe I tracked it down to mi_parse(). From Marc> what I can see, we cannot call error() from mi_parse() because it Marc> does not catch exceptions. Marc> Note that the segfault does not happen in full MI mode, I think because Marc> we are in the correct interpreter for output, however, the MI command Marc> does not get the proper ^error and requires the user to enter a new line Marc> to get the ^done. Thanks for the patch. Marc> The below patch removes the calls to error() and uses fprintf_unfiltered. Marc> Because of the comment Marc> /* FIXME: This should be a function call. */ Marc> I took the opportunity to make a method mi_parse_error(). I don't mind this approach, but I think it is probably better to just change mi_parse to use exceptions like the rest of gdb. Then the caller can handle them, just like it does for exceptions occurring in the actual MI command. The reason I think this is better is that a rule like "this code cannot call error" is reasonably difficult to enforce in gdb. What do you think of that? A quick nit about the patch itself. Marc> +void Marc> +vmi_parse_error (struct mi_parse *parse, const char *format, va_list args) The new functions need introductory comments. I would have made them both static. Tom