From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8507 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2009 02:02:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 8025 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Sep 2009 02:02:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e24smtp03.br.ibm.com (HELO e24smtp03.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:02:53 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.109]) by e24smtp03.br.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n8P1wNG2031477 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:58:23 -0300 Received: from d24av05.br.ibm.com (d24av05.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.44]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n8P23ThL1335604 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:03:29 -0300 Received: from d24av05.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av05.br.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id n8P22nks010762 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:02:49 -0300 Received: from miki.localnet ([9.8.14.114]) by d24av05.br.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id n8P22mXY010759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:02:49 -0300 From: =?iso-8859-1?q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= To: Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFC] Wording of "catch syscall " warning Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:02:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (Linux/2.6.30.4; KDE/4.3.1; i686; ; ) Cc: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20090925003107.87780843AC@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <20090925014913.GI2112@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20090925014913.GI2112@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200909242302.48369.sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00775.txt.bz2 On Thursday 24 September 2009, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > One alternative is to not print the warning at all if system call > > names are unavailable. >=20 > I'm slightly leaning towards not printing any warning at all. This is > mostly because I dislike warnings when there is nothing I can do about > them. I was going to reply Doug's message saying that I'd prefer a warning to be= =20 printed, but anyway, here is what I think... I may be misunderstanding thi= ngs=20 here, but I think that warnings are not always intended to ask the user to= =20 intervent and fix something. Sometimes, warnings are just intended to tell= =20 the user "hey, something went wrong while I was working, so you will not be= =20 able to use feature XYZ". Of course, this is what I understand by "warning messages", and I will not= =20 complain if the majority decides to remove them from this piece of code :-). My two cents. --=20 S=E9rgio Durigan J=FAnior Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - LTC IBM Brazil