On 11/29/2016 10:13 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/29/2016 07:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Would you prefer that I went with approach (B), or is approach (A)
acceptable?
Well, I was hoping there'd be an approach (C) where the read-rtl code
uses whatever diagnostics framework that is available. Maybe it'll turn
out that's too hard. Somehow the current patch looked strange to me, but
if there's no easy alternative maybe we'll have to go with it.
So, I've tried to build patches 1-6 + 8, without #7. It looks like the
differences are as follows:
- A lack of seen_error in errors.[ch], could be easily added, and
basically a spelling mismatch between have_error and errorcount.
- A lack of fatal in diagnostics.c. Could maybe be added to just call
fatal_error?
All this seems simpler and cleaner to fix than linking two different
error handling frameworks into one binary. Do you see any other
difficulties?
Bernd
