Re: [PATCH 1/5] Rewrite final cleanups

[Tom Tromey <tromey@adacore.com>]

>>>>> "Lancelot" == Lancelot SIX <lsix@lancelotsix.com> writes:

>> tempdir_name = xstrdup (tempdir_name);
>> -  make_final_cleanup (do_rmdir, tempdir_name);
>> +  add_final_cleanup ([] ()
>> +    {
>> +      char *zap;
>> +      int wstat;
>> +
>> +      gdb_assert (startswith (tempdir_name, TMP_PREFIX));
>> +      zap = concat ("rm -rf ", tempdir_name, (char *) NULL);
>> +      wstat = system (zap);
>> +      if (wstat == -1 || !WIFEXITED (wstat) || WEXITSTATUS (wstat) != 0)
>> +	warning (_("Could not remove temporary directory %s"), tempdir_name);
>> +      XDELETEVEC (zap);

Lancelot> I am aware that this is orthogonal to this patch and can be address by
Lancelot> another patch, but in the way to c++ification, this could be replaced
Lancelot> with:

Lancelot>   std::filesystem::remove_all (tempdir_name);

Yeah, I think it's better to do this kind of thing as a separate
cleanup.

Also I wonder if all the compilers we support ship std::filesystem.
(I have no idea.)

>> void
>> do_final_cleanups ()
>> {
>> -  do_my_cleanups (&final_cleanup_chain, SENTINEL_CLEANUP);
>> +  for (auto &func : all_cleanups)
>> +    func ();
>> +  all_cleanups.clear ();

Lancelot> I am wondering if we want special handling if one of the cleanup
Lancelot> function ever throws.  It is probably acceptable to expect callbacks to
Lancelot> never throw (unfortunately, we can’t have use std::function<void ()
Lancelot> noexcept> to have this in the type system).  If we accept that callbacks
Lancelot> can throw, is it OK to skip pending cleanup functions?

We could catch and ignore exceptions here.
I'm not sure how important this really is.  The current code has ignored
it for decades.

Tom