Re: [PATCH 0/2] Demangler crash handler

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

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