From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26639 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2012 11:15:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 26617 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2012 11:15:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gbenson.demon.co.uk (HELO gbenson.demon.co.uk) (80.177.220.214) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:15:18 +0000 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:18:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Jan Kratochvil , Doug Evans , Eli Zaretskii , Mark Wielaard Subject: Re: [RFA take 5] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738) Message-ID: <20120223111515.GA3785@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil , Doug Evans , Eli Zaretskii , Mark Wielaard References: <20120220155848.GA5813@redhat.com> <20120220194804.GA5968@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120222145337.GA17726@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120223095715.GA10868@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20120223095715.GA10868@host2.jankratochvil.net> 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/msg00505.txt.bz2 Jan Kratochvil wrote: > 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. I'm happy to add such a message. Cheers, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/