[RFA]: issue warnings for frame offenses
Jeff Johnston
jjohnstn@redhat.com
Thu Nov 4 18:28:00 GMT 2004
Jeff Johnston wrote:
>
> Sounds fine. I'll start working on it. I assume you meant
> non_fatal_error below for the new function that issues the quit.
>
Ignore my question above. I understand what is asked for now. I was reading
QUIT as being QUIT the current operation, but you mean it to be more severe so
what you say below makes sense.
-- Jeff J.
>> - add a new fatal_error():
>>
>> There should be a new error mechanism that throws a QUIT instead of
>> ERROR. Code should not normally be catching QUIT (much unfortunately
>> does). A fatal error is things like: syntax error; no target; lost
>> target. Things like a memory access violation though are not fatal.
>>
>> - think about stopping code catching and then discarding QUIT
>> Grep for RETURN_MASK_ALL in the sources - it should be
>> RETURN_MASK_ERROR :-/
>>
>> - modify the backtrace code to catch ERROR, but not QUIT
>>
>> Along the lines of Joel's suggestion, the backtrace command should
>> catch ERROR (but should not catch QUIT). That way simple problems
>> don't abort the script but fatal ones do.
>>
>>
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list