Re: [RFC] Wording of "catch syscall <number>" warning

["Sérgio Durigan Júnior" <sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thursday 24 September 2009, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > I was going to reply Doug's message saying that I'd prefer a warning
> > to be printed, but anyway, here is what I think...  I may be
> > misunderstanding things here, but I think that warnings are not always
> > intended to ask the user to intervent and fix something.  Sometimes,
> > warnings are just intended to tell the user "hey, something went wrong
> > while I was working, so you will not be able to use feature XYZ".
> 
> This is really splitting hair, at this point, and I'm happy either way,
> but being perfectionist, I'll just explain my reasoning, and let you
> guys decide.  In this case, nothing really went "wrong" per se, there
> is just a feature that's missing because the person who built the
> debugger, which is usually not the same as the user, built the debugger
> without expat. If you decide to warn that something went wrong, I'd say
> warn only once, something like:
> 
>     warning: This debugger was compiled without XML support.
>     It will not be able to verify the validity of syscall numbers.

I see your point.  We already warn the user (only once) if GDB won't be able 
to display syscall names, but we don't tell anything about GDB not being able 
to verify the validity of syscall numbers.  Maybe we should include this 
information in this "one-time warning", and remove the other warnings then.

Regards,

-- 
Sérgio Durigan Júnior
Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer
Linux Technology Center - LTC
IBM Brazil