linux-low.c: stop_all_processes vs longjmp snafu?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

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