From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24356 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2011 17:38:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 24146 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Nov 2011 17:38:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 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; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:38:20 +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 (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA3HcJLF013955 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:38:19 -0400 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 pA3HcILA001713; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:38:19 -0400 Received: from barimba (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 pA3HcHqd025570; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:38:17 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Petr =?utf-8?Q?Hluz=C3=ADn?= Cc: paawan oza , "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" , chandra krishnappa Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm reversible : References: <998639.46560.qm@web112516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <321260.58442.qm@web112504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316327455.23344.YahooMailNeo@web112509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316404058.27177.YahooMailNeo@web112502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1318650316.91503.YahooMailNeo@web112508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:38:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: ("Petr \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Hluz\=C3\=ADn\=22's\?\= message of "Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:02:51 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (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: 2011-11/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Petr" =3D=3D Petr Hluz=C3=ADn writes: Petr> The guideline - which I think Tom was reffering to - is that Petr> impossible states and coding bugs in gdb should trigger assertions Petr> however user's input (no matter how malformed) should trigger warning Petr> or error messages. Yes, I think that rule makes the most sense. Petr> Some situations are difficult to decide whether they are trigger-able Petr> by user input or not. Petr> If my code is not coded or intended to handle such situations I prefer Petr> to kill the process (or whatever are assertions configured to do) and Petr> get feedback from user. Petr> I am not familiar with GDB customs, though. Tom? I think crashing gdb should be limited to "can't happen" scenarios arising from the internal logic. Tripping across an unrecognized instruction or the like should just result in an ordinary gdb error -- something the user can reasonably recover from. If the error message is informative enough about what went wrong, it will result in a bug report :-) Tom