Re: [RFA take 6] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738)

[Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>]

Doug Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Jan Kratochvil
> <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:50:55 +0100, Doug Evans wrote:
> > > +  --use-old-index-sections\n\
> > > +                     Do not reject old (broken) .gdb_index sections.\n\
> > > +"), stream);
> > >
> > > s/(broken)/(incomplete)/
> >
> > FYI I may not have the right interpretation of English words but
> > with "incomplete" it may suggest to me that only part of the file
> > will use index and part of the file will be processed by a slower
> > non-indexed method.
> >
> > It should suggest user the GDB functionality will be affected.
> 
> The doc patch uses the word "incomplete", so that's why I suggest
> using it here.  If one wants to find a better word, great, but I
> think the same word should be used in both places.

Jan, Doug, Eli, how do you feel about "possibly inconsistent"?

The option text would become:

"Do not reject possibly inconsistent .gdb_index sections."

and the docs would be s/incomplete/possibly inconsistent/

Warnings would be:
  versions < 4: "Skipping obsolete .gdb-index section in %s"
  versions 4,5: "Skipping possibly inconsistent .gdb_index section in %s,
                 pass --use-old-index-sections to use them anyway"

Does that look ok?

Thanks,
Gary

--
http://gbenson.net/