From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 974 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2014 08:23:59 -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 961 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jun 2014 08:23:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:23:57 +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 s5J8NtO1023091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:23:55 -0400 Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-59.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.59]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5J8Nsih003190; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:23:55 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 208E326243A; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:23:54 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:23:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: [COMMITTED PATCH 0/3 v5] Demangler crash handler Message-ID: <20140619082353.GA13540@blade.nx> References: <20140609152229.GA27494@blade.nx> <87y4x3tc05.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y4x3tc05.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00692.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Gary" == Gary Benson writes: > > Gary> This series is an updated version of the demangler crash > Gary> handler I 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. Committed and pushed. Thanks everyone, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/