From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5689 invoked by alias); 7 May 2003 04:13:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5682 invoked from network); 7 May 2003 04:13:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) (66.187.233.200) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 May 2003 04:13:49 -0000 Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (aoliva.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.1.10]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h474Dii31647; Wed, 7 May 2003 00:13:44 -0400 Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br [127.0.0.1]) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h474DhWn000694; Wed, 7 May 2003 01:13:43 -0300 Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h474DhTN000690; Wed, 7 May 2003 01:13:43 -0300 To: Alan Modra Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: limit overflow errors to something sensible References: <20030505052232.GW924@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 04:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030505052232.GW924@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 On May 5, 2003, Alan Modra wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 06:25:50PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Apr 10, 2003, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> > Index: ld/ChangeLog >> > from Alexandre Oliva >> >> > * ldmain.h (overflow_cutoff_limit): Declare. >> > * ldmain.c (overflow_cutoff_limit): Define, initialized to 10. >> > (reloc_overflow): Limit error messages based on it. >> > * lexsup.c (parse_args) : Set cutoff to >> > unlimited. >> >> Ping? > OK, except the overflow_cutoff_limit comment needs fixing to agree > with the code (-2 => no limit, not -1). The comment says -1 is for no errors, and less than that for no limits, so it's already correct. I'm going ahead and checking it in. Thanks, -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer