From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9463: 24.0.50; Errors should not be continuable Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:10:49 +0300 Message-ID: <83vct25gxy.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1315552329 1694 80.91.229.12 (9 Sep 2011 07:12:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:12:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eller.helmut@gmail.com, 9463@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 09 09:12:05 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R1vFs-0001RC-Ro for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:12:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52683 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1vFs-0000Cw-AA for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 03:12:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42539) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1vFp-0000Ca-LA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 03:12:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1vFo-000130-BO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 03:12:01 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:53945) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1vFo-00012w-9w for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 03:12:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R1vJi-0007fL-CG; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 03:16:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 07:16:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9463 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9463-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9463.131555251427985 (code B ref 9463); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 07:16:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9463) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Sep 2011 07:15:14 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R1vIv-0007H6-Tb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 03:15:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R1vIs-0007At-Ek for 9463@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 03:15:11 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LR800B00UDUBF00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 9463@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:10:44 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.9.62]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LR800B9UULV4O70@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:10:44 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 03:16:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:50739 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:23:09 -0400 > Cc: 9463@debbugs.gnu.org > > > I think the "do what would have happened if the debugger had not been > > called" thing should be a different command, like resignal or abort. > > Why? When the debugger is called in a non-error case, the "c" does just > that "do whatever would have happened if the debug call had no taken place". > > > c should only continue from truly continuable situations, like > > breakpoints. > > Again: why? I agree with Stefan. The current operation of `c' is consistent with what other debuggers do in this situation. For example, when GDB catches a fatal signal, typing `c' will simply let the program continue with the signal, which may mean it will crash.