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

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> 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.

-- 
Joel