From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20496 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2007 11:44:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 20486 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Dec 2007 11:44:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:44:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lBMBij9J008776 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:44:45 -0500 Received: from zebedee.littlepinkcloud.COM (vpn-14-43.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.43]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lBMBiiov017636; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:44:44 -0500 Received: from littlepinkcloud.COM (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zebedee.littlepinkcloud.COM (8.13.8/8.13.5) with ESMTP id lBMBih2p031799; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:44:44 GMT Received: (from aph@localhost) by littlepinkcloud.COM (8.13.8/8.13.5/Submit) id lBMBih2x031796; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:44:43 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18284.63659.225269.214216@zebedee.pink> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:33:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC In-Reply-To: References: <4766B8E5.60500@google.com> <4766DF5C.1020802@google.com> <47671BF4.5050704@google.com> <1! 198092296.6413.5.camel@janis-laptop> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.93.1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00660.txt.bz2 Alexandre Oliva writes: > On Dec 21, 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > > Alexandre, I have to say that in my opinion absurd arguments like this > > do not strengthen your position. > > I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I don't understand why you and > so many others apply different compliance standards to debug > information. We know you don't understand, but that isn't likely to change. Would it not surely be better to cease this pointless argument and get on with the job of improving debuginfo? This absolutist position you seem to have adopted isn't helping. If we could talk about "better" and "worse" rather than "correct" and "incorrrect" we'd get much further. Andrew. -- Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903