From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14173 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2010 21:56:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 14162 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Dec 2010 21:56:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:56:11 +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 (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB6LtlDM018948 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:55:47 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oB6LtkFf000768; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:55:46 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB6LtjUG029996; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:55:46 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 7A1493780EF; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:55:45 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Ping: unconditionally print detaching message References: <20101119221615.GK2634@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:56:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20101119221615.GK2634@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:16:15 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Tom> It occurred to me that perhaps we could instead have a setting for this. Tom> I am ambivalent about that but if that is what people want, I will Tom> implement it. Joel> We could introduce message without a setting for now - the fewer, Joel> the better (IMO). And if people complain about it, then introduce Joel> one to prevent from being printed if the user so wishes... It looks like we already changed it once, so this would be the second time. Why is "set print inferior-events" off by default? It seems like we could resolve this by turning it on by default and perhaps making this patch consult that setting. Tom