Re: [RFC] Implement 'set|show error-handling abort-execution|print-and-continue|silently-ignore

[Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>]

On Mon, 2021-05-24 at 08:49 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > > > > > "Simon" == Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
> 
> Simon> I didn't look at the implementation, just read the commit log.  But I
> Simon> like this approach, because it's a bit more general than the command
> Simon> approach it seems.  And you can define an alias that makes it look as if
> Simon> it was an "ignore-errors" command.
> 
> Perhaps gdb should supply this alias.
This is for sure easy to supply.
Note however that the 'ignore-errors' name is somewhat inconsistent with the terminology 
used by the -s option of 'thread apply' and 'frame apply':
  -c
    Print any error raised by COMMAND and continue.

  -s
    Silently ignore any errors or empty output produced by COMMAND.

The same terminology was used for the setting 'silently-ignore'.
Maybe we should 'extend' the -s and -c option of 'frame/thread apply' to 
-silently-ignore-error and -continue-on-error and use exactly the same words
in this setting ?

> 
> Is there really a case where you'd want to disable all error handling by
> all commands?  I think that's the critical question for choosing which
> patch to land.
The use case is:  source a file (for example .gdbinit) but execute all what works
in this file, whatever the errors.
As far as I understand, with the ignore-errors command,
you have to source the file repetitively and add ignore-errors in front of all
commands that are giving an error.
This then obliges to edit repetitively the file.

Another behavior difference is that the setting applies transitively
and applies to user defined commands.

Philippe