From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25836 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2011 14:34:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 25788 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2011 14:34:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 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; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:34:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p71EYLjf023974 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 10:34:21 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p71EYLtj016884; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 10:34:21 -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 p71EYJiT021326; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 10:34:20 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Mostly code cleanup: stack.c: TRY_CATCH simplifications References: <20110730222038.GB26756@host1.jankratochvil.net> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:34:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20110730222038.GB26756@host1.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Sun, 31 Jul 2011 00:20:38 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-08/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> after [patch 1/2] some constructs become obviously redundant. FWIW, I like both these patches. Jan> This is a "code cleanup" except for the RETURN_MASK_ALL change. I haven't Jan> found any specific reason in the mail thread introducing it and neither any Jan> reason in the current code, IMO it was only a mistake. I looked at it, and I agree. Tom