From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7518 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2014 21:03:46 -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 7503 invoked by uid 89); 11 Jun 2014 21:03:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 21:03:43 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s5BL3Z5L015473; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 23:03:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id s5BL3Y1Y025443; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 23:03:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 21:03:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201406112103.s5BL3Y1Y025443@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: tromey@redhat.com CC: gbenson@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <87y4x3tc05.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (message from Tom Tromey on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:41:30 -0600) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v5] Demangler crash handler References: <20140609152229.GA27494@blade.nx> <87y4x3tc05.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00479.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:41:30 -0600 > > >>>>> "Gary" == Gary Benson writes: > > Gary> This series is an updated version of the demangler crash handler I > Gary> posted last week. > > Thanks, Gary. > > I re-read the various discussions and my belief is that you've addressed > all the comments. I believe Mark has proposed a compromise which you > implemented, and I believe Stan's objections were contingent on Mark's. > > This patch has been unusually contentious. So I'd give folks yet > another opportunity to express their disapprovals; let's say another > week. > > Disapprovals, I believe, must be accompanied by technical reasons for a > rejection. Gary has already addressed most such arguments, so if you > are responding, please make sure to read the previous threads. My position still is that this is duct tape being applied because of extremely bad engineering practices. Don't expect me to approve the compromise. I still think the whole excercise was a tremendous waste of time. In fact I feel a little bit blackmailed because Gary kept on putting work into this diff. But I'll shut up now.