From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5406 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2003 15:49:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5392 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2003 15:49:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kerberos.suse.cz) (195.47.106.10) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2003 15:49:22 -0000 Received: from chimera.suse.cz (chimera.suse.cz [10.20.0.2]) by kerberos.suse.cz (SuSE SMTP server) with ESMTP id 6CD6C59D3C7; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:49:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from suse.cz (naga.suse.cz [10.20.1.16]) by chimera.suse.cz (8.11.0/8.11.0/SuSE Linux 8.11.0-0.4) with ESMTP id h13FnL426288; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:49:21 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: chimera.suse.cz: Host naga.suse.cz [10.20.1.16] claimed to be suse.cz Message-ID: <3E3E8F80.8000702@suse.cz> Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 15:49:00 -0000 From: Michal Ludvig Organization: SuSE CR User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: cs, cz, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: GDB Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Added verbosity to dwarf2* References: <3DFB7943.3060702@suse.cz> <3E3E7FF4.5030200@suse.cz> <3E3E8A13.1060902@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <3E3E8A13.1060902@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney wrote: >> Michal Ludvig wrote: >> this patch adds some more verbosity to GDB's error messages. I've >> found it very useful for bugreports, because you can locate the >> failing testcase much faster when knowing in what objfile it fails. >> It also helps GCC developers hunting their bugs in DWARF2 generator. >> >> OK to commit to mainline? And to 5.3 branch? >> >> Because noone complained for a long time and it's only about changing >> some strings, not changing a functionality, I've committed the patch >> to both mainline and branch. > > > Michael, just FYI, if a patch goes into limbo (as in has an unclear > approval status) then the best thing to do is `ping'. If it was something more than changing some strings I'd 'ping' it, for sure. But with this simple patch I decided for commit. I'm sorry if I should ping it. Should I revert the changes? Michal Ludvig -- * SuSE CR, s.r.o * mludvig@suse.cz * (+420) 296.545.373 * http://www.suse.cz