This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 2/2 v3] Demangler crash handler


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:36:03 +0100
>> > From: Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>
>> > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, aburgess@broadcom.com, xdje42@gmail.com,
>> >         fw@deneb.enyo.de, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, palves@redhat.com,
>> >         tromey@redhat.com
>> >
>> > Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> > > > From: Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>
>> > > >
>> > > > Eli pointed out that SIGSEGV is an ANSI-standard signal but I
>> > > > found various other SIGSEGV checks in GDB
>> > >
>> > > They should all be removed.
>> >
>> > Ok, I'll do this.  Should I commit the change as obvious?
>>
>> I think so, yes.
>
> Ok, I'll do that.

Are we talking about #ifdef SIGSEGV in, e.g., common/signals.c?

[assuming that's correct ...]
If one goes down this path, I think the patch while perhaps "obvious"
would become a bit involved (why just SEGV?) and thus the obviousness
diminishes.
I think it diminishes to a point where the obviousness is gone.
Please submit any such patch for review.
Thanks!


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]