From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17716 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2014 09:19:07 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 17698 invoked by uid 89); 6 Jun 2014 09:19:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:19:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s569Iwtb004233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 6 Jun 2014 05:18:58 -0400 Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-93.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.93]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s569IuWf010336; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 05:18:57 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CA0732622D4; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:18:55 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:19:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Doug Evans Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Andrew Burgess , Eli Zaretskii , Florian Weimer , Mark Kettenis , Pedro Alves , Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v4] Demangler crash handler Message-ID: <20140606091855.GC28998@blade.nx> References: <20140605130140.GA20572@blade.nx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00309.txt.bz2 Doug Evans wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > > Doug requested that I change the patch to emit warnings for every > > demangler crash, not just the first. > > Umm, that's not what I said, to be precise, and it was more of a > suggestion for discussion than a request. Ah, I misunderstood. > > > I've not done this, my reason > > being that subsequent failures could have been caused by the first, > > by memory corruption or some leftover state: they could be bogus, > > and could lead to us chasing bugs that don't exist. I prefer this > > way, but I'm not hung up on it and if it's a blocker for Doug or > > anyone else I will add the extra warnings. > > It's not a blocker to me. Great :) Thanks, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/