Re: [RFA] Don't talk about ptrace when there's none

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at delorie dot com>]

Elena Zannoni wrote:

> All you would need to do it this, to get HAVE_PTRACE, if that's what
> you want.  
> 
> Elena
> 
> Index: configure.in

[Patch which introduces HAVE_PTRACE omitted.]

Michael Snyder wrote:

> Oh -- on second thought, the message is appropriately placed --
> it just doesn't need to mention ptrace!  The semantics of
> print_sys_errmsg is to spell out what "errno" says.  Perhaps
> we should replace the string "ptrace" with the name of the
> function that contains this code.

So what do people prefer, eventually?  I could:

  (a) install the changes posted by Elena, and have the error message
  mention ptrace only if HAVE_PTRACE is defined;

or

  (b) change the wording of the message so that it doesn't mention
  ptrace at all, as suggested by Michael.

I like the second alternative better, especially since, as I now
understand, ptrace is unused on many platforms.

Comments?