From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31228 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2002 15:51:47 -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 31218 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2002 15:51:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2002 15:51:47 -0000 Received: from dialup-64.156.149.151.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net ([64.156.149.151] helo=dr-evil.shagadelic.org) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17gSL7-0003LW-00; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 08:51:42 -0700 Received: by dr-evil.shagadelic.org (Postfix, from userid 7518) id 70EE19869; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 08:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 08:51:00 -0000 From: Jason R Thorpe To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Don't complain about unknown OSABI Message-ID: <20020818085112.B1667@dr-evil> Mail-Followup-To: Jason R Thorpe , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3D5FC00D.50001@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3D5FC00D.50001@ges.redhat.com>; from ac131313@ges.redhat.com on Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 11:41:01AM -0400 Organization: Wasabi Systems, Inc. X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00500.txt.bz2 On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 11:41:01AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > The attached patch removes the warning message that is printed when the > OSABI is unknown (all the sniffers failed). > > When debugging an embedded executable, there is no OSABI info. Hence I > don't think the warning should be issued. This can be seen when > debugging a GCC created, mips-elf executable. > > thoughts? This has always been kind of a gray area ... There's really an argument for doing it either way, and the warning in fact came from the ancestors of the common code ... but, you're probably right that the best overall solution would be to just remove the warning. -- -- Jason R. Thorpe