Re: --with-pkgversion and --with-bugurl support for GDB

Joseph S. Myers
2008-06-06T20:22:04Z

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:28:15 +0000 (UTC)
> > From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
> > cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> >
> > +static void
> > +gdbreplay_version (void)
> > +{
> > + printf ("GNU gdbreplay %s%s\n"
> > + "Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\n"
> > + "gdbserver is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License.\n"
> > + "This gdbserver was configured as \"%s\"\n",
> > + PKGVERSION, version, host_name);
>
> We start by announcing a "GNU gdbreplay", but thereafter talk about
> "gdbserver". Is that right? Shouldn't we either (1) use gdbreplay
> throughout, or (2) say something like "GNU gdbreplay (gdbserver %s%s)"?

OK to commit this patch to say gdbreplay consistently?

2008-06-06 Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>

* gdbreplay.c (gdbreplay_version): Say gdbreplay in version
message, not gdbserver.

Index: gdbreplay.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/gdbserver/gdbreplay.c,v
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -u -p -r1.17 gdbreplay.c
--- gdbreplay.c 5 Jun 2008 22:36:57 -0000 1.17
+++ gdbreplay.c 6 Jun 2008 20:20:18 -0000
@@ -396,8 +396,8 @@ gdbreplay_version (void)
{
printf ("GNU gdbreplay %s%s\n"
"Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\n"
- "gdbserver is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License.\n"
- "This gdbserver was configured as \"%s\"\n",
+ "gdbreplay is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License.\n"
+ "This gdbreplay was configured as \"%s\"\n",
PKGVERSION, version, host_name);
}

--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com