From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22016 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2002 15:21:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22003 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2002 15:21:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2002 15:21:34 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAE13E0B; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D63AFF8.30009@ges.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:21:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020810 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carlos O'Donell Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Issue an internal warning on first deprecated function call References: <3D5C248D.4030003@ges.redhat.com> <1020815223303.ZM7495@localhost.localdomain> <20020816133012.GC11845@systemhalted> <3D5D030F.4050409@ges.redhat.com> <9003-Sun18Aug2002213705+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <3D619A15.1040504@ges.redhat.com> <20020820131725.GA4803@systemhalted> <7458-Wed21Aug2002093822+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <20020821130508.GC17486@systemhalted> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00246.txt.bz2 >> > >> > What's wrong with making users scared? > >> >> It's wrong because GDB users cannot do anything about the problem, and >> the message's language seems to imply it's a potentially very grave >> problem (which it isn't). >> > > > It's not a grave problem? Please explain. Eli's right here. The warning would be to strong. internal-error and internal-warning refer to GDB detecting an errenous internal state. Error for non-recoverable, warning for recoverable. Unless some action is taken, the long term prognosis doesn't look good. However, short term, GDB could just as easily die due to a SIGSEG. >> > What if there are no port maintainers? > >> Then the head maintainer gets the honor. > > > Like the parisc port? Yep. I get to ``fix'' the problem. I just checked in a change to MAINTAINERS file so that it recommends hppa-elf as the target to try building. This new target doesn't include som support (unlike hppa natives) and so makes the multi-arch task just that bit more feasible :-) enjoy, Andrew