From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29086 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2015 16:48:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 29051 invoked by uid 89); 27 Apr 2015 16:48:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:48:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3RGm1KW017083 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:48:01 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-27.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.27]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3RGlvgA002096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:48:00 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:48:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Phil Muldoon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] compile: set debug compile: Display GCC driver filename Message-ID: <20150427164757.GA10548@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20150423203402.23140.92757.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <553E5646.8020708@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <553E5646.8020708@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01001.txt.bz2 On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:31:18 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > Hmm, but does it really make sense to add a "verbose" flag to > particular methods incrementally? > > It seems to me that "set debug compile" should enable verbosity in > in the plugin, for all methods. Which in turn suggests to me > that we should have a separate method in the plugin for toggling > verbosity? Are these questions or directions? I do not have an answer for the questions. Jan