From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5987 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2017 19:24:27 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 5947 invoked by uid 89); 8 Oct 2017 19:24:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-26.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=here's X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 19:24:24 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (cable-192.222.251.162.electronicbox.net [192.222.251.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 986581E515; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:24:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Breakpoint commands in MI mode and "backtrace" To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sourceware.org References: <8360bqt0im.fsf@gnu.org> <8a3d7153-7486-032f-aabc-6c3453f96459@simark.ca> <83shetsdg2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 19:24:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83shetsdg2.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 On 2017-10-08 02:26 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > This doesn't compile when applied to GDB 8.0 code. Can the same be > done with the scoped_restore class instead? I don't know, maybe. But here's the equivalent version with the corresponding cleanup, that applies on the 8.0 branch: diff --git a/gdb/cli/cli-script.c b/gdb/cli/cli-script.c index f1db954a69..34ae4966de 100644 --- a/gdb/cli/cli-script.c +++ b/gdb/cli/cli-script.c @@ -472,6 +472,8 @@ print_command_trace (const char *cmd) printf_filtered ("%s\n", cmd); } +static void restore_interp (void *arg); + enum command_control_type execute_control_command (struct command_line *cmd) { @@ -491,8 +493,14 @@ execute_control_command (struct command_line *cmd) { /* A simple command, execute it and return. */ std::string new_line = insert_user_defined_cmd_args (cmd->line); - execute_command (&new_line[0], 0); + + struct interp *old_interp = interp_set_temp (INTERP_CONSOLE); + struct cleanup *old_chain = make_cleanup (restore_interp, old_interp); + + current_interpreter ()->exec (&new_line[0]); ret = cmd->control_type; + + do_cleanups (old_chain); break; } > In any case, there are more instances of calls to execute_command in > that function, and I guess they all need to be changed like that? I don't see any other call. Simon