From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11938 invoked by alias); 25 May 2009 22:55:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 11929 invoked by uid 22791); 25 May 2009 22:55:51 -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; Mon, 25 May 2009 22:55:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C7B2BAC27; Mon, 25 May 2009 18:55:44 -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 1xVXEGq1MC3M; Mon, 25 May 2009 18:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8BC2BAC20; Mon, 25 May 2009 18:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BEA71F5965; Tue, 26 May 2009 00:55:37 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 22:55:00 -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: <20090525225537.GH23016@adacore.com> References: <83d4a9q9e5.fsf@gnu.org> <20090520213200.GE16152@adacore.com> <837i0bp2bb.fsf@gnu.org> <20090521170502.GJ16152@adacore.com> <83iqjst89t.fsf@gnu.org> <20090525062922.GE23016@adacore.com> <83ws84syok.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83ws84syok.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/msg00569.txt.bz2 > Well, using current_language was the old behavior before your change, > so my patch is just falling back on that old behavior. True :). > > We're trying to recover nicely from the situation in order to be > > more useful for the user, so getting rid of the error is OK, but I'd > > probably still emit a complaint. WDYT? > > How about a warning under verbose operation? Would that be enough? Sure. I don't know what the verbose switch would be, but I believe that complaints provide that kind of functionality - by default, complaints are turned off, but you can configure GDB to print the first N complaints emitted. -- Joel