This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA take 6] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738)
On 03/15/2012 07:34 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:36:24 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>> Do not reject obsolete .gdb_index sections with possibly
>>>> inaccurate info.
>>>>
>>>> However, if everyone else is tired of bikeshedding, go ahead with
>>>> whatever you like.
>>>
>>> I would like make clear from the option help that it will have
>>> negative effect on GDB functionality; that it is not just some
>>> performance tuning. So leaving the right wording up to you, just
>>> expressing my original goal.
>>
>> "Innaccurate" is a good word, thanks Eli. I will make the changes
>> and commit the patch tomorrow if nobody has any further objections.
>
> To be honest, I don't like "inaccurate".
> But I'm not going to push it.
Why don't we just go with "deprecated"? We completely skip the
"obsolete" ones, and skip the "deprecated" ones, unless the user
wants them badly. The explanation why they're deprecated belongs
elsewhere - it doesn't have to be part of the option name...
So picking up one of Gary's previous examples, warnings would
simply be:
versions < 4: "Skipping obsolete .gdb-index section in %s"
versions 4,5: "Skipping deprecated .gdb_index section in %s,
pass --use-deprecated-index-sections to use them anyway"
--
Pedro Alves