From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17101 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2003 03:27:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16936 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2003 03:27:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Oct 2003 03:27:33 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9T3RWM27753 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:27:32 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9T3RW629162 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:27:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-2.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.2]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9T3RVju030769; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:27:31 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h9T3RPR04660; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:27:25 -0700 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:27:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031029032725.ZM4659@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [patch, rfa:ppc64, rfa:breakpoint] Add non-verbose breakpoint adjustment" (Oct 27, 6:38pm) References: <3F9D5864.50807@redhat.com> <1031028205935.ZM3486@localhost.localdomain> <3F9DAC5F.8030007@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [patch, rfa:ppc64, rfa:breakpoint] Add non-verbose breakpoint adjustment Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00829.txt.bz2 On Oct 27, 6:38pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> For breakpoint.c, I've also modified the warnings so that the warning: > >> > >> warning: Breakpoint 2 address previously adjusted from 0x104e5a60 to > >> 0x100895d0. > >> > >> no longer occures - I figure that the user will have noted it when the > >> breakpoint was set. It could also be made per-breakpoint? > > > > > > I would prefer that gdb issue warnings both at the time the breakpoint > > was set and when it gets hit. Or at least until we have more > > experience with it and find that the second warning unduly annoys > > users. > > As a user, it annoyed me :-) > > If you'd prefer I'll let PPC64 print both warnings as well. ppc and frv are very different. I don't think any warnings should be printed for ppc, but I think both warnings should be printed for frv. Over time, we may find that that second warning for frv is too annoying to stay, but for the moment I think it should stay. Kevin