From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21539 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2017 02:08:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 21530 invoked by uid 89); 9 Oct 2017 02:08:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:08:58 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (cable-192.222.251.162.electronicbox.net [192.222.251.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C37F71E517; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:08:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove cleanup from frame_prepare_for_sniffer To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20171008225243.21921-1-tom@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <80ec2920-c401-ccf6-8ddf-b519b518e921@simark.ca> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:08:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171008225243.21921-1-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg00179.txt.bz2 On 2017-10-08 06:52 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Currently frame_prepare_for_sniffer returns a cleanup. This patch > changes it to return void, and exposes frame_cleanup_after_sniffer to > the caller. > > Normally I would write an RAII class for this sort of thing; but > because there was just a single caller of frame_prepare_for_sniffer, > and because this caller is already using try/catch, I thought it > seemed ok to require explicit calls in this instance. > > Regression tested by the buildbot. I think it makes sense, LGTM.