From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 129563 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2016 21:13:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 129547 invoked by uid 89); 29 Nov 2016 21:13:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:8470 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:13:38 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A99EF804EE for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:13:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-6-132.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.6.132]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uATLDXGA010813; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:13:35 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] Add RTL-error-handling to host To: David Malcolm , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <1478898935-46932-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <1478898935-46932-8-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <1480440038.7673.125.camel@redhat.com> <1480445612.7673.132.camel@redhat.com> From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1480445612.7673.132.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg02931.txt.bz2 On 11/29/2016 07:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > Would you prefer that I went with approach (B), or is approach (A) > acceptable? Well, I was hoping there'd be an approach (C) where the read-rtl code uses whatever diagnostics framework that is available. Maybe it'll turn out that's too hard. Somehow the current patch looked strange to me, but if there's no easy alternative maybe we'll have to go with it. Bernd