From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28050 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2009 19:30:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 28036 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2009 19:30:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:30:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1B92BAAE7; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:30:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Q3BPW6Vv2AsI; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:30:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FCE62BAAE3; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:30:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E2503F5C3F; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:44:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Francois Rigault Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [Patch] Improve path lookup of absolute source file Message-ID: <20090315193005.GA9294@adacore.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00239.txt.bz2 > would you accept a patch that uses a macro somewhere so that users can > choose to compile gdb with or without the modified lookup routine ? Not sure what the other maintainers think, but for the type of change that you're suggestion, we generally don't. This tends to complicate the code, and can also confuse uses as to why the same version of GDB would "work" in one case and "not work" in the other. There's also the question of testing if your change is disabled by default. A softer approach would be based on using a "set ..." command to determine one approach or the other. But I am not sure it would make sense in this case, as my understanding is that the setting would allow the user to switch between two approaches that are similar, but with different holes in them. -- Joel