From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9701 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2012 19:52:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 9691 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2012 19:52:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 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 19:51:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2FJpdri002488 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:51:39 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2FJpa7g012885; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:51:37 -0400 Message-ID: <4F624848.4090503@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:52:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: Jan Kratochvil , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, mark@klomp.org Subject: Re: [RFA take 6] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738) References: <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> <20120315184026.GA28322@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120315192931.GA11584@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00577.txt.bz2 On 03/15/2012 07:34 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Gary Benson wrote: >> Jan Kratochvil wrote: >>> 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. >> >> "Innaccurate" is a good word, thanks Eli. I will make the changes >> and commit the patch tomorrow if nobody has any further objections. > > To be honest, I don't like "inaccurate". > But I'm not going to push it. Why don't we just go with "deprecated"? We completely skip the "obsolete" ones, and skip the "deprecated" ones, unless the user wants them badly. The explanation why they're deprecated belongs elsewhere - it doesn't have to be part of the option name... So picking up one of Gary's previous examples, warnings would simply be: versions < 4: "Skipping obsolete .gdb-index section in %s" versions 4,5: "Skipping deprecated .gdb_index section in %s, pass --use-deprecated-index-sections to use them anyway" -- Pedro Alves