From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11099 invoked by alias); 20 May 2013 16:42:37 -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 11090 invoked by uid 89); 20 May 2013 16:42:37 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mail-ve0-f177.google.com (HELO mail-ve0-f177.google.com) (209.85.128.177) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:42:36 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ox1so5741739veb.8 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=w+CstdIXJ9pt5s671SiXwNTLTNr51XsXla8rW1Dga/U=; b=kvoXZ/bBipFEefALpyZ/JDrNaIDRjznhRdlap0RlBFdgbpGF9vd0rZ49M9Hm1SnZv/ mxjNO9bHCwLncOlo6gFCz8SB+5Y8B4c1JUf93tJKqmQOLxocby8uopPv5gfrKJy7SmH3 uaVgiZpftrVfdP00w2ibPhGMduMy84gmMF64jX1NB4BQMlHNx00FIOvmr+98RlQwobTK V4gmkBrUGkDMMLfmn1BJwnRWOYo4S52x/oNzSO8WrrAoZDs/hfD2BG60vLQphQLv0UQt pJyV0jJ4EknqijAdRQCP6pg6FE87iswyJgfm1ZSO/0w0hBqJTivbMxdJxQcwObhBT3tF VrHw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.232.202 with SMTP id tq10mr13895012vdc.80.1369068154555; Mon, 20 May 2013 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.232.73 with HTTP; Mon, 20 May 2013 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130520054023.GL4017@adacore.com> References: <871u95qy90.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20130520054023.GL4017@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA] Make cu/tu functions in dwarf.exp take a list of options From: Doug Evans To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn3xlStKDHV4GzKq7tHFJwERrmTMtNVIi5e8h0H/ld1dgMIhMzvIfGMkUvnBe2RS30y2BG/k7ejgCCA2R9Ws8hXxgH+UxHcsvPdoD8idAwyK7kEg8ZAviZz5tsrlOcq3jj65S7/0KbrMRJGO3BVba9NFf6uh3qxlpjWBYqk1qDS/BBwDzQHKuFTiOlUVdpIE10jv6IIBTY+G7SHGGO8zoUKKnpLKA== X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00733.txt.bz2 On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> When you change the calling sequence of a function in a simple fashion, >> and you change all the callers of the function to use the new calling >> sequence, there is no need to make individual entries for all the >> callers that you changed. Just write in the entry for the function >> being called, ``All callers changed''---like this: > > FWIW: No real opinion, but I intepreted the above in the context > of the same file only. I find that listing all the files adjusted > was fairly easy, so I thought the added information was worth the > small effort... "small" can be relative, and we shouldn't IMO be adding effort to writing ChangeLogs that have incommensurate value. [For example, we go *way* beyond what is required by standards.texi for doc ChangeLogs.]