Re: Thread bound variable objects [was: Re: MI non-stop mode spec]

[Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>]

 > > OK, it should be:
 > > 
 > >   +  if (old_cleanups != NULL)
 > >   +    do_cleanups (old_cleanups);
 > 
 > I think that's also wrong. In the event that no cleanups were installed
 > before calling this function, this code will fail to run the
 > cleanups installed by this function. In the event that a cleanup
 > should be really installed conditionally, the right code is:
 > 
 > 	struct cleanups *back_to  = make_cleanup (null_cleanup, NULL);
 > 
 > 	if (...)
 > 		make_cleanup ();
 > 
 > 	do_cleanups (back_to);

I don't really see that: if nothing is added to cleanup_chain then no cleanups
are done.

 >...
 > > I see now from the ChangeLog that you've committed your own change without
 > > posting to the list first or explaining what it does.
 > 
 > Sorry, no:
 > 1. I've checked in two changes, not one.
 > 2. Both are posted to gdb-patches.

OK, my mistake.  I saw the first one.

 > 3. Both are general cleanups, and don't implement anything that your patch
 > tries to implement.

It's just that the second one includes changes in and overlaps with my patch so
I thought it was part of that thread.  I'm not sure where that leaves things
now.

 > > My patch does two things:
 > > 
 > > 1) It stops a variable object from being considered automatically out of
 > >    scope when the selected thread changes.
 > > 2) It associates a thread-id field with the variable object so that the
 > >    front end can organise the display of watch expressions accordingly.
 > > 
 > > AFAICS your patch does neither of these.  Could you please say what it
 > > does do?
 > 
 > Please see my gdb-patches posts.

With regard to the second patch, why you are using
make_cleanup_restore_current_thread when you aren't switching the thread in the
first place?

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob