From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19958 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2008 10:44:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 19946 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2008 10:44:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:44:11 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-42-152.inter.net.il [80.230.42.152]) by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id EPT02798 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:43:52 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:44:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, brobecker@adacore.com, msnyder@specifix.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20080110155103.GB22176@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:51:03 -0500) Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA?] Should break FILE:LINENO skip prologue? Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20080109151745.GA13181@adacore.com> <1199910284.14654.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080109203453.GI21281@adacore.com> <1199912695.14654.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080110041540.GK21281@adacore.com> <200801101038.m0AAcT01010079@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20080110155103.GB22176@caradoc.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00263.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:51:03 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, msnyder@specifix.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > IMHO adding knobs is not desirable, but if the default is to keep the > > current behaviour, I won't object. > > I also would prefer not to add a knob for this. I don't like knobs > for things that (IMHO) we should simply decide consistently. There's nothing wrong with a knob, IMO, when there's controversy about what's ``consistent''.