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: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat 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
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 12:06:51 +0100
- 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> <201405112023 dot s4BKNL3v024248 at glazunov dot sibelius dot xs4all dot nl> <20140513102134 dot GB17805 at blade dot nx> <537242D9 dot 7080101 at redhat dot com> <20140515132408 dot GC13323 at blade dot nx>
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