From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17596 invoked by alias); 21 May 2009 17:05:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 17500 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2009 17:05:20 -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; Thu, 21 May 2009 17:05:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AF82BACCD; Thu, 21 May 2009 13:05:05 -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 o0oUUU4+cTFQ; Thu, 21 May 2009 13:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8CD12BACE4; Thu, 21 May 2009 13:05:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 27698F5965; Thu, 21 May 2009 19:05:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:05:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix printing frame arguments for COFF debug info Message-ID: <20090521170502.GJ16152@adacore.com> References: <83d4a9q9e5.fsf@gnu.org> <20090520213200.GE16152@adacore.com> <837i0bp2bb.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <837i0bp2bb.fsf@gnu.org> 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00464.txt.bz2 > > I see that this is addressed in one of your followup messages > > Not really, no. The followup messages deal with a different problem. > This issue, i.e. whether common_val_print and/or val_print should be > defensive about getting language_auto, still remains. I'd like to > hear your opinion about that. Ah yes, of course! We could add guards in the valprint routines, I supposed, but I'm not sure it's really worth the effort, now that we have fixed the cause. The error is not crippling, so I personally wouldn't bother. But I wouldn't object either, especially if it's a small localized change (I think I'd make the change in val_print). -- Joel