Re: RFC: next/finish/etc -vs- exceptions

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> writes:

Pedro> As it is in your patch, you're reusing the longjmp paths in
Pedro> infrun.c and co., but it may end up that's not a good choice.

Yeah, I wondered about that.  I did it this way because the user
functionality is really similar; but if the implementation needs diverge
then it is not a good approach.

Pedro> I also thought at the time that there were some things in that
Pedro> patch (I didn't look at this new one yet), that should be split
Pedro> into independent changes, like changes to insert longjmp breakpoints
Pedro> in a few commands that didn't had them inserted (but memory is a
Pedro> bit vague by now though, I can't remember exact details).

Yes, that would make sense.  I can do that.  (And, your recollection is
correct here.)

Pedro> I did brush
Pedro> up my only-follow-longjmp-if-going-outer patches a bit and I was
Pedro> aiming at posting it before you had updated your patch, but obviously
Pedro> I failed.  :-/

No problem!

Pedro> I think if we have a chance of looking at what needs addressing
Pedro> for longjmp first (and split your changes that concern with longjmp
Pedro> too), we will have a better result.  Would you mind that?

Not at all.  I'll wait to see that and then see what changes and/or
splits my patch needs.

Tom