From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29324 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2013 15:37:44 -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 29260 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jun 2013 15:37:37 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:37:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5QFbW1x027679 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:37:32 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-102.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.102]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5QFbSiN015968 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:37:29 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil , Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [commit] Improved linker-debugger interface References: <20130516144340.GA2105@blade.nx> <20130604133819.GA25892@blade.nx> <20130625205350.GA28973@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:38:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Sergio Durigan Junior's message of "Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:13:04 -0300") Message-ID: <87hagkrih3.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00775.txt.bz2 Joel> Also, I am wondering we really want a warning in this case - Joel> I think this is going to make the average user think that there Joel> is something wrong and therefore that needs to be fixed. What Joel> do people think? Sergio> The second thing is the warning. It is issues by Gary's patch, and I Sergio> agree that it could confuse users. However, I think it is still a good Sergio> thing to have. Maybe one could create a debug flag that would enable Sergio> printing such warnings? Just an idea. It seems to me that we could make the warning more verbose and have it request that users file a bug report; and it could include a little explanation, plus some text to report. Like: warning: Probes-based dynamic linker interface failed: Unknown numeric token ... This means there is a bug, either in gdb or elsewhere in the toolchain. Please report it to the gdb bugzilla, along with this information: Arch: Whatever Probe name: ... Argument number: ... Argument text: ... Being extra wordy is a bit of a pain, maybe, since presumably users will see it often. OTOH, it's a "shouldn't happen" scenario where gdb has lots of information already... Also, I wonder why we're trying to use the probes on a platform to which the gdb side hasn't been ported. Are we just optimistically trying to parse the assembly operands here? Tom