From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-44461-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12871 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2006 16:42:00 -0000
Received: (qmail 12862 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2006 16:41:59 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:41:57 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-209-89.inter.net.il [80.230.209.89]) 	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id EVO51702 (AUTH halo1); 	Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:41:54 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:42:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uslmeqo19.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>, julian@codesourcery.com,         gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20060609122532.GA24240@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:25:33 -0400)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Accept DWARF 3-format debug info
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <4488A920.9090705@codesourcery.com> <vt2wtbrjkll.fsf@theseus.home.> <u1wtyss8o.fsf@gnu.org> <20060609122532.GA24240@nevyn.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:25:33 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>
> Cc: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>, julian@codesourcery.com,
> 	gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:28:07AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > In this case, what will happen when GDB sees a DWARF-3 feature it
> > doesn't yet support?  I think we should make sure it displays a
> > warning message, instead of throwing an internal error (or some
> > similar fatal reaction).
> 
> Same thing that happens when we see a DWARF-2 feature we don't support
> ;-)

Which is -- what?  (I really don't know.)

> GCC is actually a DWARF-3 producer in almost all ways.  It just didn't
> bump the version number, to avoid upsetting consumers, since most of
> the changes are forwards-compatible.

Well, the same reasons GCC had to avoid upsetting consumers might be
relevant for us as well, don't you think?