From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19090 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2012 10:52:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 19082 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2012 10:52:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 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, 15 Mar 2012 10:52:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2FAqdE3011246 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:52:39 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-16.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.16]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2FAqZCL028163 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:52:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:52:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii , Mark Wielaard Subject: Re: [RFA take 6] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738) Message-ID: <20120315105234.GA17113@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120314133746.GA5696@redhat.com> <20120314175451.GA20072@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120315105117.GA3076@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120315105117.GA3076@redhat.com> 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00530.txt.bz2 On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:51:17 +0100, Gary Benson wrote: > 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? Fine with me. Thanks, Jan