Hi Paolo,
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:10:17PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:10:17 +0100
> From: Paolo Bonzini
> Subject: Re: [RFC] util/error-report: Add "error: " prefix for error-level
> report
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:37 AM wrote
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:37 AM wrote:
> > This was done in the context of inheriting the original error_report()
> > interface without the prefix style. And it was also useful to have a
> > means of error handling, such as exit(), when error occurs, so that the
> > error message - the most serio
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 01:36:07PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
[snip]
> Sounds like a good idea to me, but I think you should then also remove
> the hard-coded "error:" strings in the various error_reports():
Thanks Thomas! I missed this case, will remove these hard-code prefix
first.
> $ grep -r
On 27/03/2024 12.46, Zhao Liu wrote:
From: Zhao Liu
When vreport() was introduced, there was no prefix for error-level
(REPORT_TYPE_ERROR) report. The original reason is "To maintain
compatibility we don't add anything here" as Alistair said in his
RFC v3 series [1].
This was done in the conte
From: Zhao Liu
When vreport() was introduced, there was no prefix for error-level
(REPORT_TYPE_ERROR) report. The original reason is "To maintain
compatibility we don't add anything here" as Alistair said in his
RFC v3 series [1].
This was done in the context of inheriting the original error_rep
