From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2413 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2009 18:00:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 2405 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2009 17:59:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_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, 09 Nov 2009 17:59:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nA9Hxo8x020008; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:59:50 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nA9Hxoa6015487; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:59:50 -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 nA9HxmNh009938; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:59:49 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8B6FF37815E; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:59:48 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: Hui Zhu Cc: gdb-patches ml , Michael Snyder Subject: Re: [RFC] Prec multi-thread support References: Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Hui Zhu's message of "Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:44:34 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (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: 2009-11/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2 >>>>> ">" == Hui Zhu writes: >> This patches just for discussions and comments. Please help me with it. >> + struct record_message_args args; >> + >> + args.regcache = get_current_regcache (); >> + args.signal = signal; >> + record_message (&args); Directly calling record_message like this is ugly, because it avoids type-checking by the compiler. I would recommend restructuring this code in one of two possible ways. The first approach is to make record_message a simple trampoline that takes a void*, decodes it, and then calls a properly-typed function. Then, only use record_message in calls to catch_errors -- direct calls should call the properly-typed implementation function. The second approach is to avoid catch_errors altogether and use TRY_CATCH instead. This lets you avoid trampolines entirely. I prefer this way, but I don't insist on it. Tom