From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21375 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2014 20:41:37 -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 21354 invoked by uid 89); 11 Jun 2014 20:41:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 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; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:41:33 +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 s5BKfWjt030571 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:41:32 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-103.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.103]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5BKfUml027908 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:41:31 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Gary Benson Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v5] Demangler crash handler References: <20140609152229.GA27494@blade.nx> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20140609152229.GA27494@blade.nx> (Gary Benson's message of "Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:22:29 +0100") Message-ID: <87y4x3tc05.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00478.txt.bz2 >>>>> "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. In the absence of that, this is ok. Thank you once again. Tom