From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:21:27 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: dtc: Simplify error handling for unparseable input Message-ID: <20080325212127.GA8281@localhost.localdomain> References: <20080324034424.GC29985@localhost.localdomain> <20080324173641.GA22159@loki.buserror.net> <20080325012805.GA1227@localhost.localdomain> <20080325143619.GB13187@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20080325143619.GB13187@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:36:19AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:28:05PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:36:41PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > > If you remove this, there'll be no way to indicate semantic errors other > > > than die() (the NULL approaches are no good, since they inhibit recovery), > > > which is suboptimal if the error is not immediately fatal. > > > > But everything is immediately fatal. When we have a *real* example of > > something that's not, we can restore an error code. > > Failed binary includes are not immediately fatal. And is there any advantage to having them not immediately fatal? -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson