From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31986 invoked by alias); 16 May 2014 11:06:59 -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 31958 invoked by uid 89); 16 May 2014 11:06:58 -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; Fri, 16 May 2014 11:06:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4GB6tgp006810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 16 May 2014 07:06:55 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4GB6qPd002448; Fri, 16 May 2014 07:06:53 -0400 Message-ID: <5375F14B.2070006@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 11:06:00 -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: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Demangler crash handler References: <20140509100656.GA4760@blade.nx> <201405091120.s49BKO1f010622@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20140509153305.GA13345@blade.nx> <201405112023.s4BKNL3v024248@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20140513102134.GB17805@blade.nx> <537242D9.7080101@redhat.com> <20140515132408.GC13323@blade.nx> In-Reply-To: <20140515132408.GC13323@blade.nx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00278.txt.bz2 On 05/15/2014 02:24 PM, Gary Benson wrote: >>> > > * Demangler patches often get waved through with minimal scrutiny >> > >> > That does sound like a problem. Can we work with the gcc folks to >> > somehow prevent this from happening? E.g., perhaps we could ask >> > them to CC all demangler patches to the gdb-patches@ list as well, >> > like supposedly done for some other shared files. > Maybe, I'm not sure who you'd ask though. All mail to gcc-patches > with "mangl" in the subject ends up in my inbox, so the stuff is at > least getting extra scrutiny from me :) Unless of course the subject > is something useless like "PR 12345" (a pet hate of mine!) We could point the current libiberty/demanger maintainers at this discussion, and see what they think of that. Or gcc-patches@. Or both. If they agree, we could document it in src/MAINTAINERS, like e.g., it's mentioned for top level files: Makefile.*; configure; configure.ac; src-release Any global maintainer can approve changes to these files, but they should be aware that they need to be kept in sync with their counterparts in the GCC repository. Also please notify the following of any committed patches: binutils@sourceware.org gdb-patches@sourceware.org It might be cleaner if the demangler was split into its own directory, IMO. Say libdemangler. I don't really know whether it depends on much in libiberty -- it's just a text transform. But that's probably not going to happen -- some measurable effort there for not that much gain. :-) -- Pedro Alves