From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15704 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2008 18:32:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 15696 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2008 18:32:24 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:31:44 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4210210CD6; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:31:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (unknown [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB8B10AD0; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:31:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LBvkP-0007Zf-4r; Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:31:21 -0500 Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: linux-low.c: stop_all_processes vs longjmp snafu? Message-ID: <20081214183121.GA28806@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Evans , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20081213001325.F05871C7A79@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 11:23:44AM -0800, Doug Evans wrote: > I was thinking that we don't want to support nested setjmps. But in a > case like this do we want to continue to try to stop all processes > even if stopping one of them throws an error? [assuming we're keeping > setjmp and not rewriting gdbserver in c++ ...] I'm more thinking that we should do actual error handling in gdbserver, and ditch the longjmp based version. It almost never works. It tends to leave state inconsistent; and up until recently (or maybe still) it left the protocol state machine in the wrong state. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery