From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15637 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2006 20:32:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 15621 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Oct 2006 20:32:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl (HELO smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl) (194.109.24.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:32:37 +0000 Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl (dovemail3.xs4all.nl [194.109.26.5]) by smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id k9BKWL7F052467; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:32:21 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl) Received: from 82.92.89.47 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sibelius) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:32:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9704.82.92.89.47.1160598745.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <20061011133756.GB25164@nevyn.them.org> References: <20061010145213.GA20993@nevyn.them.org> <20061010213438.GC1059@adacore.com> <20061011133756.GB25164@nevyn.them.org> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:32:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [rfc] Clarify shared library warning From: "Mark Kettenis" To: "Joel Brobecker" , "Eli Zaretskii" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00124.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 02:34:38PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > > warning: .dynamic section for "/lib/libc.so.6" is not at the > > expected > > > > address > > > > warning: the wrong version of the shared library may have been found > > > > > > Such a change is a good idea, I think. > > > > > > We could make it shorter, though: > > > > > > warning: .dynamic section for "/lib/libc.so.6" is not at the > > expected > > > address (wrong version of the shared library?) > > > > I like the change too, but I prefer Daniel's version. I find it much > > clearer. > > Actually, I like Eli's version better, myself. If you find the longer > one clearer, could you try to explain why? I prefer Eli's version. I also think that if further explanation beyond Eli's version is required the proper place really is the manual. Mark