From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23048 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2012 07:07:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 23028 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2012 07:07:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,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; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:06:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBJ76suJ028295 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 02:06:54 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-39.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.39]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBJ76oAc019427 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 02:06:53 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:07:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: "Douglas, William" Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] print_frame add info Message-ID: <20121219070649.GA30988@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <87ehiocel0.fsf@intel.com> <20121218083252.GA8054@host2.jankratochvil.net> <877goftkcc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2012-12/txt/msg00673.txt.bz2 On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:52:21 +0100, Douglas, William wrote: > Okay so would a patch be acceptable with iam's original changes > getting updated per that thread then? The original iam's patch is being reworked in archer-jankratochvil-absdir http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ArcherBranchManagement and hopefully to be finished this week, or maybe the next one. Currently it has set filename-display {absolute|basename|relative} with (current) default "relative" but for the shared libraries "relative" has no meaning and moreover we want to also have an option "none" (the current one). So I see I should rename the option above rather to "set source-filename" as "filename" is too ambiguous. And this discussed feature should be unrelated to it with new option: set solib-filename {none|absolute|basename} with current default still "none", or something like that, what do you think? Both options should default to something else than what is the current behavior but that should be done in a separate patch afterwards. Thanks, Jan