This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[RFC] Wording of "catch syscall <number>" warning
- From: dje at google dot com (Doug Evans)
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, sergiodj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: [RFC] Wording of "catch syscall <number>" warning
Hi.
The current wording of this warning feels clumsy if syscall names
are unavailable. It implies there are known syscalls, when there is not.
I'll leave this for a few days and then check it in if there
are no objections.
One alternative is to not print the warning at all if system call
names are unavailable.
2009-09-24 Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
* breakpoint.c (catch_syscall_split_args): Use a different warning
for "catch syscall <number>" when syscall names are unavailable.
Index: breakpoint.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/breakpoint.c,v
retrieving revision 1.419
diff -u -p -r1.419 breakpoint.c
--- breakpoint.c 15 Sep 2009 03:30:04 -0000 1.419
+++ breakpoint.c 25 Sep 2009 00:22:31 -0000
@@ -7486,9 +7486,16 @@ catch_syscall_split_args (char *arg)
/* We can issue just a warning, but still create the catchpoint.
This is because, even not knowing the syscall name that
this number represents, we can still try to catch the syscall
- number. */
- warning (_("The number '%d' does not represent a known syscall."),
- syscall_number);
+ number. If system call names are unavailable, use a different
+ wording though. */
+ {
+ if (get_syscall_names () != NULL)
+ warning (_("The number '%d' does not represent a known syscall."),
+ syscall_number);
+ else
+ warning (_("Syscall names are unavailable, assuming '%d' is valid."),
+ syscall_number);
+ }
}
else
{