backtrace changes current source location

Andrew Cagney
Fri Oct 29 15:22:00 GMT 2004

Hmm, things have changed.

Felix Lee wrote:
> Andrew Cagney <>:
>>(Don't forget to consider the error case - if an error is thrown a 
>>restore would be lost)
> is it worth setting up an unwind handler for that?  I couldn't
> think of a case where an error would be usual, and for unusual
> errors, all bets are off.

As a debugger, we're no longer going to gamble with the user interface - 
even when there's an error the behavior should be well defined.

Can you find out why selected sal is being corrupted, code shouldn't be 
modifying it.

>>Thanks for remembering this.  However, as a separate test, it should be 
>>in a separate file.
> how about putting the test in list.exp?  or is the idea to move
> toward one test per file?

The latter, if foo.exp passes then feature foo works :-)  If you're at a 
loss for a name, just create a bug report and then call the test 
gdb<prnumber>.{c,.exp} (we're no longer sharing C files between test 
cases either :-).


More information about the Gdb-patches mailing list