Re: [PATCH 0/2] Demangler crash handler

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> > Having been on the receiving end of this kind of logic, I agree
> > with Tom - quite strongly too, in fact. As a user, I do not want
> > to be held hostage, especially when there is no workaround. If
> > the proposed solution brings no noticeable harm for our users
> > in the situation where things are working as expected, I think
> > we should consider it. And to help mitigating the fears that
> > we would be hiding bugs, we can perhaps find a middle-ground;
> > for instance, making sure that we print a really verbose error
> > message.
> 
> I'm definitely not trying to hide bugs; if anything I'm trying to
> make them more reportable.  FWIW users would see this:

Sorry, Gary. You're right. I should have said something like
"reducing the likeliness of getting bugs fixed because the pressure
to get them fixed would be less".

> The point is to make it easier for users to file straightforward bug
> reports *with reproducers* rather than the opaque "GDB crashed at
> startup" bugs we've been getting at the moment that people (by which
> I mean Keith) have had to spend time triaging.  And, at the same time,
> for the user to have the option to attempt to continue using GDB to
> debug their program.  I realise that people may feel that the user
> *should* then fix GDB, but not everyone has the time or the ability
> or the inclination.  I don't want the workaround for this to become
> "try LLDB".

I think that the fact that this makes it easier for the user to
report the problem is also another excellent point in favor of
the suggested solution.

-- 
Joel