From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13549 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2012 09:57:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 13539 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2012 09:57:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:57:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1N9vMV8015591 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:57:23 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-21.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.21]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1N9vGN4018473 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:57:20 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:15:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii , Mark Wielaard Subject: Re: [RFA take 5] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738) Message-ID: <20120223095715.GA10868@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120220155848.GA5813@redhat.com> <20120220194804.GA5968@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120222145337.GA17726@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00504.txt.bz2 On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:56:41 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > with some more discussions about it Tom also shares this opinion.  I think > > Google should just apply the provided patch downstream.  Upstream/Gary should > > drop that --allow-incomplete-gdb-indexes option completely, incl. dropping the > > GDB code for backward compatibility with .gdb_index v4 and v5. > > Setting aside Google's needs, > If I were allowed to decide, I would require v4,v5 compatibility for > at least one release. So if it is officially a temporary compatibility additionally to --allow-smth-gdb-indexes GDB could print - if it finds out v4/v5 .gdb_index: warning: Not using old .gdb_index v%d, rebuild it with this GDB version. I have some doubts any user would ever use --allow-smth-gdb-indexes otherwise. Regards, Jan