Re: [RFA 3/3] Initial Fission support, the actual Fission stuff

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

Doug> IWBN to have an option to make complaints errors, but that is
Doug> problematic as well.  For now, my plan is to turn the errors into
Doug> complaints in time.

Radical view follows.

I'm more and more of the opinion that we should just remove all the
complaints.

First, there's evidence that nobody reads them.
There are a few complaints that have been regularly printed for years,
with zero action.  (Now, at least one of these is a GCC/GDB/GNU
interpretation of DWARF that is, IMO, baked in and unlikely to change
(the register thing) -- so one may argue that just the bad ones should
be eliminated.)

Second, the complaints are in practice often useless for finding or
reporting any problem.  I usually resort to debugging gdb.
Fixable, of course, but seeing as nobody has bothered...

Third, even if the messages were useful, they're still not very good for
ordinary users to understand "why doesn't gdb work".  That's because,
unless they are enabled at the moment at which debuginfo is read, they
are just gone.

I think rather than complaints we could get "someone" to fix up
dwarflint instead.  This would serve the toolchain development community
better.  E.g., we could build the distro with dwarflint checking and fix
the bugs.

Tom