From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27715 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2010 17:35:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 27667 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2010 17:35:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:34:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o79HYuGq005260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:34:56 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o79HYuUq012401; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:34:56 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o79HYtJN029030; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:34:55 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 04B9D3781A0; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:34:54 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: sami wagiaalla Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] smart pointer support References: <201008061648.o76Gmk3o008780@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <4C5C7FAB.2090005@redhat.com> <4C6025EF.5080509@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4C6025EF.5080509@redhat.com> (sami wagiaalla's message of "Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:59:43 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Sami" == sami wagiaalla writes: Tom> This seems strange. When can the result here be NULL? And what does Tom> that mean? It seems like this either ought to be impossible, or it Tom> should be an error of some kind. Sami> Yes this is incorrect. value_x_unop never returns null. If the Sami> operator is not found it throws an error. I added a try catch Sami> statement and tests for the failing case. Why a try/catch? I would think that letting any error propagate would be more appropriate. Tom