From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5239 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2008 19:14:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 5231 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2008 19:14:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_MX,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; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:13:21 +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 mBTJBKuN025219; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:11:20 -0500 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 mBTJBJ8Y025503; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:11:19 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-253.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.253]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBTJBIfb009833; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:11:18 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id A3DAF3786CD; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:11:17 -0700 (MST) To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PR 7536 - ``set input-radix 1'' changes radix References: <200812290221.14557.pedro@codesourcery.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200812290221.14557.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Mon\, 29 Dec 2008 02\:21\:14 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (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: 2008-12/txt/msg00449.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> PR 7536 is about the fact that GDB lets the user set the input Pedro> radix to 0 or 1, although claims it doesn't: Pedro> Checked in, after making sure there were no regressions Pedro> on x86_64-linux. Thanks. I also looked at this bug a little, and I was wondering whether we should fix this generically, for all parameters, by saving the parameter's value and then restoring it if the setter function raises an error. What do you think of that? Tom