From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26642 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2013 21:03:03 -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 26629 invoked by uid 89); 25 Sep 2013 21:03:02 -0000 Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (HELO mail-ie0-f171.google.com) (209.85.223.171) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:03:02 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_RELAYS,SPAM_SUBJECT autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ie0-f171.google.com Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id at1so296908iec.2 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:03:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SmJmTZpiBjStx5sxebqLAygixVVCcOLwSqtp01J/mS8=; b=nE+IMCvQKKiLlLZxBtaUnjdjluDOH3Q3JUpbjhzWf+GqSNyQYlHpttoRfBdhi/Z2Be 1zOynkxEwF/9a1dTR5Uq8+ZDFeC2BN+2qAz0uLNPBTCkarXHNhj7UNZkWbvxgifc4aJl rC6YK+yVW4lEKG4JGJ5q8RqGenwyCMiBfcP7N09UsjWlhF5/kLKcfSga+Dsp+jM+jfff AR2Bdz8b8fszAHryaTjqsjTsc1QjSPy1j4WTgbxVzprMQpo6UL4cVtjlDmcV1llxC9KH J2hAh/2bQfZA0Klwy+pmECmr8Brof0Wj18teUjdMk/GkFiglaaQYetOCR5hnp1wmToSt hvSw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmLH6scD5MCWSoAyYciJd+stgrMYVTrTVKRUWhtss9IfQZdP/Mc/ty95U3hfaYbZDS6E5z/vWBeFcqAjJr1J/3bIHGz7hW9UtzFUqRGuwmWjSHOXz9xouEttPp9SDPI6AkQno/kcXu6FSVc4DGtv7gAcunH1NF1X24CAci3BmM8wO6jimhLzWlV4PoiDXOM2VEs9eUfDw8CQ1/mXe7EahQfp7QasA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.227.72 with SMTP id iz8mr30177299icb.27.1380142980217; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.31.100 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:03:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87fvssisi8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <87fvssisi8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA, doc RFA] Add "set debug symfile on". From: Doug Evans To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches , Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00907.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: > > Doug> This patch adds a new debugging option: set debug symfile on > > Doug> For now it logs all calls through the symfile functions. > > Doug> Regression tested on amd64-linux. > > Doug> Ok to check in? > > It seems ok to me. > > This patch combines a few different things into one. For example, > reordering the arguments to map_matching_symbols has no relation to the > rest of the patch. We normally make other contributors split such > patches. I think it is best if maintainers do this as well. I realize that. [And I figured you'd bring it up. :-)] My argument is that for a small patch of this approx size I don't want to impose on contributors *always* having to follow this rule. One can reasonably counter with how can one know what the threshold is, and that it would be more consistent to just always follow this rule. I guess this is one case where I'm a bit more wishy washy - it's a time saver (and that's important!). [As for time spent by the reviewer: for small enough patches any incremental time is negligible IMO.] To be clear, for larger patches I would indeed follow this rule (when I remember to ... 1/2 :-)). But no matter. I'll put in the time to split it up and check it in that way.