From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21679 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2002 16:29:05 -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 21670 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2002 16:29:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2002 16:29:04 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC3C3E0D; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:29:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D63BFCD.4050609@ges.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:29:00 -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: Kevin Buettner Cc: Carlos O'Donell , 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> <3D63AFF8.30009@ges.redhat.com> <1020821155157.ZM29316@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 > On Aug 21, 11:21am, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >> > 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. > > > Wait a moment... You were going to use internal warnings to alert the > users that a deprecated function has been called, right? I don't > consider this to be an erroneous internal state that has to be > recovered from. I originally proposed that, but per above, I'm dropping the idea. >> However, short term, GDB could just as easily die due to a SIGSEG. > > > It shouldn't so long as the gdb developers haven't broken the legacy > functions that are being deprecated. (Unless it did before, but that's > a different problem.) > > Kevin >