From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18764 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2015 17:52:20 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 18749 invoked by uid 89); 27 Apr 2015 17:52:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:52:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3RHqHk7024636 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:52:17 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-27.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.27]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3RHqEgr008375 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:52:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:52:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Phil Muldoon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] compile: set debug compile: Display GCC driver filename Message-ID: <20150427175213.GA12596@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20150423203402.23140.92757.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <553E5646.8020708@redhat.com> <20150427164757.GA10548@host1.jankratochvil.net> <553E6F92.4020204@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <553E6F92.4020204@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01005.txt.bz2 On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:19:14 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > Both. I was curious on the reason why this was added as a flag > to a method, It looks to me as a most simple and working change to the API. > and on your thoughts, I do not have any thoughts about GDB, I make minimal changes. Even these design changes are still wrong because of the incorrect principle of search for the GCC driver. In LLDB this already works for years better, properly designed and with compatible licensing. > I think it should indeed be made a separate method. OK, I will post a new API for approval so that I do not have to rework the 2 patch series for the 3rd times as this reviewing method is very expensive. Thanks, Jan