From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30403 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2013 03:53:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 30384 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2013 03:53:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 03:53:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0B3rfjS005123 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:53:41 -0500 Received: from psique (ovpn-113-189.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.189]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0B3rbCL016938; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:53:38 -0500 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Pedro Alves Cc: Jan Kratochvil , GDB Patches , Binutils Development , "H.J. Lu" Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 02/02 v2] Refactor PRPSINFO handling on GDB References: <20121218171555.GA19639@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121231194134.GA17955@host2.jankratochvil.net> <50EF0BE3.6040503@redhat.com> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 03:53:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <50EF0BE3.6040503@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:43:47 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2013-01/txt/msg00209.txt.bz2 On Thursday, January 10 2013, Pedro Alves wrote: > The subject is a bit misleading, as this does more than > just refactoring PRPSINFO handling; it dumps more fields > as well. Splitting the refactoring and the actual > extending into separate patches, along with a short > description of what's new in the cores would have been neat, > but I'm coming back late to the party, and don't insist. Wow, OK, sorry about that, it wasn't my intention. Anyway, at first I thought that the extension could be seen as refactoring as well, that's why I didn't bother making another patch. >> + /* Generating and copying the program's arguments. `get_inferior_args' >> + may throw, but we want to continue the execution anyway. */ >> + TRY_CATCH (ex, RETURN_MASK_ERROR) >> + { >> + infargs = get_inferior_args (); >> + } >> + > > Hmm? We were not doing that before. What exception is that? `get_inferior_args' calls `construct_inferior_arguments', which can call `error' in an specific scenario (not STARTUP_WITH_SHELL, arguments that contain spaces). -- Sergio