From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id cOynHZCkKGIrYgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 07:58:56 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6866D1F3CA; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 07:58:56 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 044AF1EA69 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 07:58:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BFB2385781D for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 12:58:55 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9BFB2385781D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1646830735; bh=8+MLAL5Dh65zawliDB9c6RpyH5W63ZnMNkVSZzbo3WE=; h=Date:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=siHqcGvL/RLpgUdQLJ/jmQP7hBx+pgxWYZpvO4GTW6ebEffOMqIPCUaScX9F3Ru1a rkXNn/ln8SJXrOtuJa390P4kiUIrEQagj8Wyc+kllhtECSorP4TWnI0r2k15Cb1UJO HVNlrPPGgDnj5PURqqIb/dBi3dfLRIqiRN/TyZio= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [209.51.188.92]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01E5D3858C20 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 12:58:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 01E5D3858C20 Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=34882 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRvtk-0007wE-Cx; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 07:58:36 -0500 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2980 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRvtj-0004W2-JS; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 07:58:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 14:58:29 +0200 Message-Id: <83wnh3e0zu.fsf@gnu.org> To: Andrew Burgess In-Reply-To: <87y21juz2g.fsf@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Burgess on Wed, 09 Mar 2022 11:48:07 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 06/15] gdb/tui: add a tui debugging flag References: <83ee3cfxln.fsf@gnu.org> <87y21juz2g.fsf@redhat.com> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: Andrew Burgess > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 11:48:07 +0000 > > > The documentation parts are OK, but I wonder whether we should mention > > the caveats you described, at least in NEWS. I'm aware that we don't > > usually describe known bugs, but since you say this could cause > > crashes, perhaps it justifies an exception? > > I don't know if that's really a route we want to start going down. Why > would this bug deserve a NEWS entry over any other bug? Because users could crash their GDB session by doing completely innocent and reasonable things? But I see that the crashes are not related to the new setting you are adding, so I withdraw my suggestion to mention the crashes in NEWS.