From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1192 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2012 18:40:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 1180 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2012 18:40:50 -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 18:40:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2FIeVcl022133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:40:32 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-16.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.16]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2FIeRPU032418 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:40:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:40:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Pedro Alves , gbenson@redhat.com, dje@google.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, mark@klomp.org Subject: Re: [RFA take 6] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738) Message-ID: <20120315184026.GA28322@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120314133746.GA5696@redhat.com> <20120314175451.GA20072@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120315105117.GA3076@redhat.com> <833999wxkt.fsf@gnu.org> <20120315181002.GA10803@redhat.com> <831uotwx2d.fsf@gnu.org> <4F623553.5050204@redhat.com> <83zkbhvhhz.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83zkbhvhhz.fsf@gnu.org> 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/msg00563.txt.bz2 On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:36:24 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Do not reject obsolete .gdb_index sections with possibly inaccurate info. > > However, if everyone else is tired of bikeshedding, go ahead with > whatever you like. I would like make clear from the option help that it will have negative effect on GDB functionality; that it is not just some performance tuning. So leaving the right wording up to you, just expressing my original goal. Thanks, Jan