From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13001 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2007 09:18:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 12990 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jul 2007 09:18:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ics.u-strasbg.fr (HELO ics.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.112.250) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:18:19 +0000 Received: from ICSMULLER (laocoon.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.112.72]) by ics.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF14F187029 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:22:08 +0200 (CEST) From: "Pierre Muller" To: Subject: Question about ARI for expression parsers Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <002d01c7d02f$11e9e510$35bdaf30$@u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-Language: en-us Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00189.txt.bz2 I just sent an email to gdb-patches about fixes for p-valprint.c regarding ARI reports. I noticed that, in the pascal specific files that I maintain, there are lots of DEPRECATED stuff in the file p-exp.y. But none of the expression parser is listed in the ARI report web page, why is that? Wouldn't it be better to include them or would it give too many false alarms? Pierre Muller Pascal language maintainer