This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 0/2] Demangler crash handler
- From: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- To: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 22:17:02 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Demangler crash handler
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140509100656 dot GA4760 at blade dot nx> <201405091120 dot s49BKO1f010622 at glazunov dot sibelius dot xs4all dot nl> <20140509153305 dot GA13345 at blade dot nx>
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> wrote:
> [...]
> + if (crash_signal != 0)
> + {
> + static int warning_printed = 0;
> +
> + if (!warning_printed)
> + {
> + warning ("internal error: demangler failed with signal %d\n"
> + "Unable to demangle '%s'\n"
> + "This is a bug, "
> + "please report it to the GDB maintainers.",
> + crash_signal, name);
> +
> + warning_printed = 1;
> + }
> +
> + result = NULL;
> + }
> +
> + return result;
Hi.
Applying "Consistency Is Good" to this patch,
I wonder if we should do something similar to what we do for internal errors.
I'm not sure I would use the same flag (grep for
internal_problem_modes and friends in utils.c), but
OTOH I wouldn't want a proliferation of options for controlling each
particular kind of "crash".
What do you think?