From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18487 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2012 10:51:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 18478 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2012 10:51:35 -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, 15 Mar 2012 10:51:20 +0000 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:51:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Doug Evans Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii , Mark Wielaard Subject: Re: [RFA take 6] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738) Message-ID: <20120315105117.GA3076@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Evans , Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii , Mark Wielaard References: <20120314133746.GA5696@redhat.com> <20120314175451.GA20072@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: 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00529.txt.bz2 Doug Evans wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Jan Kratochvil > 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/