This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] arm reversible : <phase_2_complete>
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Petr HluzÃn <petr dot hluzin at gmail dot com>
- Cc: paawan oza <paawan1982 at yahoo dot com>, "gdb-patches\ at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, chandra krishnappa <chandra_roadking at yahoo dot com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:38:17 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm reversible : <phase_2_complete>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <1316327455.23344.YahooMailNeo@web112509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1316404058.27177.YahooMailNeo@web112502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1318650316.91503.YahooMailNeo@web112508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <CAC=yr6D+d-Q4Yzfm6AoWSYgb4+Bopubg4wFDX9QDSUUFFcFtWg@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>> "Petr" == Petr HluzÃn <email@example.com> writes:
Petr> The guideline - which I think Tom was reffering to - is that
Petr> impossible states and coding bugs in gdb should trigger assertions
Petr> however user's input (no matter how malformed) should trigger warning
Petr> or error messages.
Yes, I think that rule makes the most sense.
Petr> Some situations are difficult to decide whether they are trigger-able
Petr> by user input or not.
Petr> If my code is not coded or intended to handle such situations I prefer
Petr> to kill the process (or whatever are assertions configured to do) and
Petr> get feedback from user.
Petr> I am not familiar with GDB customs, though. Tom?
I think crashing gdb should be limited to "can't happen" scenarios
arising from the internal logic.
Tripping across an unrecognized instruction or the like should just
result in an ordinary gdb error -- something the user can reasonably
If the error message is informative enough about what went wrong, it
will result in a bug report :-)