From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5480 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2009 02:38:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 5469 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Sep 2009 02:38:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e24smtp04.br.ibm.com (HELO e24smtp04.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:38:46 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.109]) by e24smtp04.br.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n8P2WkhM016747 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:32:46 -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 n8P2dNQN635364 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:39:23 -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 n8P2cgZQ023783 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:38:43 -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 n8P2cdqG023780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:38:42 -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 02:38:00 -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> <200909242302.48369.sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090925022021.GK2112@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20090925022021.GK2112@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200909242338.37707.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/msg00777.txt.bz2 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". >=20 > 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: >=20 > 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 abl= e=20 to display syscall names, but we don't tell anything about GDB not being ab= le=20 to verify the validity of syscall numbers. Maybe we should include this=20 information in this "one-time warning", and remove the other warnings then. Regards, --=20 S=E9rgio Durigan J=FAnior Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - LTC IBM Brazil