From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16735 invoked by alias); 21 May 2007 12:52:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 16714 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2007 12:52:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 May 2007 12:52:51 +0000 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7D74B267; Mon, 21 May 2007 07:52:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7F24B262; Mon, 21 May 2007 07:52:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Hq7NY-0008TR-8w; Mon, 21 May 2007 08:52:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] no shared library support warning on powerpc-elf Message-ID: <20070521125248.GA32557@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070508221252.GG3798@adacore.com> <20070511180155.GB1684@caradoc.them.org> <20070511225001.GA3559@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070511225001.GA3559@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-05/txt/msg00332.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 03:50:01PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > Maybe the warning should simply be removed? I don't think it's very > > valuable. If shared library support is really missing, either the > > testsuite will catch it or a user will eventually notice. > > I agree it's not very useful in this case. It's not something that > is conditional on the environment, but rather a known limitation. > Seeing the debugger emit this warning every time can make the user > think that something's wrong with his setup. > > So, I'm all for removing it. Any objection from anyone? There weren't any; could you post a patch (maybe in a new Subject: in case someone else wants to comment?) removing the warning? If no one objects I'll approve it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery