From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2725 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2003 06:14:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2718 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 06:14:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO is.elta.co.il) (199.203.121.2) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2003 06:14:10 -0000 Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA23310; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:08:52 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 06:14:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz@is To: Andrew Cagney cc: David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, drow@mvista.com, mec@shout.net Subject: Re: [rfa/doc] correct info about best C++ compilers/debug formats In-Reply-To: <3E3ED5EA.7020308@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Just FYI, the dwarf v3 spec contains one `DWARF 2' and no `DWARF2's. I don't really care how do we spell DWARF 2, as long as we do that consistently and as long as future support of DWARF 3 will spell DWARF 3 the same way. Perhaps also look at GCC docs and see if they spell it differently; I'd prefer to be consistent with them as well.