From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-80940-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 19199 invoked by alias); 10 May 2011 17:10:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 19186 invoked by uid 22791); 10 May 2011 17:10:29 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 May 2011 17:10:11 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LKZ00F00OWRSR00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 10 May 2011 20:09:18 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.234.175]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LKZ00F90OZDJNB0@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Tue, 10 May 2011 20:09:14 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:10:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix handling of elided libthread-db-search-path values.
In-reply-to: <20110510165918.8488B246196@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com>
To: dje@google.com (Doug Evans)
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83r586h48u.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20110510165918.8488B246196@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00251.txt.bz2

> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: dje@google.com (Doug Evans)
> 
> 2) There's an assumption that the default value for libthread-db-search-path
>    is always an empty list.
> 
> That's true, but only because no one overrides LIBTHREAD_DB_SEARCH_PATH.

But the new text doesn't mention LIBTHREAD_DB_SEARCH_PATH at all.  So
it leaves the reader in the darkness wrt the default value and where
will it come from.

> -@samp{libthread-db-search-path} will be reset to an empty list.
> +@samp{libthread-db-search-path} will be reset to the its value.
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A typo.