From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 90248 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2015 17:19:19 -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 90238 invoked by uid 89); 27 Apr 2015 17:19:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 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 17:19:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 798D68E787 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:19:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3RHJEm1018491; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:19:15 -0400 Message-ID: <553E6F92.4020204@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:19:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Phil Muldoon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] compile: set debug compile: Display GCC driver filename References: <20150423203402.23140.92757.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <553E5646.8020708@redhat.com> <20150427164757.GA10548@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20150427164757.GA10548@host1.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01002.txt.bz2 On 04/27/2015 05:47 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > 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. Both. I was curious on the reason why this was added as a flag to a method, and on your thoughts, because, as I said, I seems to me that that's not the best direction. So if there's no good reason, I think it should indeed be made a separate method. Thanks, Pedro Alves