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: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink dot net>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>, Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 06:08:55 -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> <87fvkhjqvs dot fsf at mid dot deneb dot enyo dot de> <53737737 dot 2030901 at redhat dot com> <87ppj8s7my dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <537BA194 dot 904 at earthlink dot net> <87tx8kqm3o dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <20140520202311 dot GK22822 at adacore dot com> <20140522125617 dot GB15598 at blade dot nx>
> > Having been on the receiving end of this kind of logic, I agree
> > with Tom - quite strongly too, in fact. As a user, I do not want
> > to be held hostage, especially when there is no workaround. If
> > the proposed solution brings no noticeable harm for our users
> > in the situation where things are working as expected, I think
> > we should consider it. And to help mitigating the fears that
> > we would be hiding bugs, we can perhaps find a middle-ground;
> > for instance, making sure that we print a really verbose error
> > message.
>
> I'm definitely not trying to hide bugs; if anything I'm trying to
> make them more reportable. FWIW users would see this:
Sorry, Gary. You're right. I should have said something like
"reducing the likeliness of getting bugs fixed because the pressure
to get them fixed would be less".
> The point is to make it easier for users to file straightforward bug
> reports *with reproducers* rather than the opaque "GDB crashed at
> startup" bugs we've been getting at the moment that people (by which
> I mean Keith) have had to spend time triaging. And, at the same time,
> for the user to have the option to attempt to continue using GDB to
> debug their program. I realise that people may feel that the user
> *should* then fix GDB, but not everyone has the time or the ability
> or the inclination. I don't want the workaround for this to become
> "try LLDB".
I think that the fact that this makes it easier for the user to
report the problem is also another excellent point in favor of
the suggested solution.
--
Joel