From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22829 invoked by alias); 15 May 2014 16:01:48 -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 22777 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2014 16:01:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 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; Thu, 15 May 2014 16:01:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4FG1i8u016289 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 15 May 2014 12:01:44 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4FG1goZ032696; Thu, 15 May 2014 12:01:43 -0400 Message-ID: <5374E4E6.9020904@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 16:01:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Benson CC: Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Demangler crash handler References: <20140509100656.GA4760@blade.nx> <201405091120.s49BKO1f010622@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <87fvkhjqvs.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <53737737.2030901@redhat.com> <5373950D.7050903@broadcom.com> <5373B6C6.6060401@redhat.com> <20140515132527.GD13323@blade.nx> In-Reply-To: <20140515132527.GD13323@blade.nx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 On 05/15/2014 02:25 PM, Gary Benson wrote: > It's not clear to me what benefit a second system for early > termination would add, or how you would decide which system > to use for any given error. Just to cross this off for the record. The idea would be to use early termination for bad input, and d_assert for asserting internal consistency is sane. Much like in GDB we don't use gdb_assert for bad input. But better coverage/testing beats this by a wide margin, in my book. Speaking of coverage, I wonder what gcov says... -- Pedro Alves