From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15318 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2003 21:37:03 -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 15310 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 21:37:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 21:37:02 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h15Lauh02366; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:36:56 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: fnasser@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: Clean up gdb.c++ tests for dwarf 1 References: <200302052130.h15LUHB10715@duracef.shout.net> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 21:37:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200302052130.h15LUHB10715@duracef.shout.net> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00111.txt.bz2 On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:30:17 -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain said: > My preference order is (1) - (2) - (3) - (4). I agree. There's no reason to fix C++ DWARF 1 support that I can see, so (4) is bad. We're trying to clean up xfails; I don't think those xfails give us any useful information, so we might as well get rid of them, so (3) is bad. (1) and (2) seem approximately equally desirable to me; if (1) is easier, then we should just go with that. There's no reason to spend any more time on this issue than is absolutely necessary. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu