From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30694 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2009 02:20:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 30682 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Sep 2009 02:20:32 -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; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:20:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13DA2BAB6A; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:20:25 -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 djO8tbtOdo2y; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:20:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D95C2BAB60; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:20:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 05DDCF593C; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:20:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:20:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: S?rgio Durigan J?nior Cc: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Wording of "catch syscall " warning Message-ID: <20090925022021.GK2112@adacore.com> References: <20090925003107.87780843AC@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <20090925014913.GI2112@adacore.com> <200909242302.48369.sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200909242302.48369.sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00776.txt.bz2 > 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