From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19314 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2012 21:23:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 19291 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2012 21:23:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:23:00 +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 q3HLMchk010731 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:22:38 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-17.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.17]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3HLMYA5007928 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:22:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:26:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [cancel] [patch] More suggestive error_is_running message Message-ID: <20120417212234.GA21359@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120410191907.GA31331@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120411152531.GD2852@adacore.com> <20120411153457.GA22022@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120411164522.GE2852@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120411164522.GE2852@adacore.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: 2012-04/txt/msg00517.txt.bz2 On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:45:22 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote: > In any case, as I said, I don't have a strong opinion. I know that > we want to both have concise error messages, while at the same time > making GDB more explanatory on some confusing or tricky situations. > This is a real conundrum. In general GDB should always suggest possible solutions to a problem. Stating just the problem may not be enough for the user. This is like GDB says just "(no debugging symbols found)" but Fedora GDB says also: Missing separate debuginfos, use: debuginfo-install bc-1.06.95-3.fc15.x86_64 considered good in: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-April/165756.html This is why I tried to suggest (one of) a possible solutions to the problem, but it somehow did not go in, maintaining all these messages downstream is expensive. Regards, Jan