This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] "info source" now includes producer string
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 05:31:46 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] "info source" now includes producer string
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <yjt2h9w52c4v dot fsf at ruffy dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <838uhh7y0t dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CADPb22SZSG0YYDd-Y3Sdt5M4v_j=31uCMwhVPTZuyR6Zdop5BQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:28:20 -0800
> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>
> >> +* The "info source" command now displays the producer string if it was
> >> + present in the debug info.
> >
> > I wonder whether we should replace "producer" with something less
> > abstract. Would "compilation command line" be accurate enough?
>
> The producer string can be anything, it's whatever the compiler
> decides, so I'm really hesitant to be specific here (and "command
> line" is too specific for me), because often it will be wrong.
We can always say "e.g." or "such as". That would at least describe
the most frequent use cases. We don't have to be 110% accurate here,
just clear enough to convey the intent.