From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2573 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2003 16:26:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2481 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2003 16:26:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 2003 16:26:29 -0000 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 4D84A1A42DB; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:26:28 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16305.3508.239806.128368@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:26:00 -0000 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: ezannoni@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/WIP] unit test for separate debug info In-Reply-To: <200311080128.hA81SnLk029187@duracef.shout.net> References: <200311080128.hA81SnLk029187@duracef.shout.net> X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 Michael Elizabeth Chastain writes: > I gave it some proof-reading but did not try running it yet. > > The idea looks okay to me. > > For documentation, it would help to just have a list of files at the top: > > gdb.base/break original executable > gdb.base/break.stripped stripped executable > gdb.base/break.sym debug symbols > gdb.base/break.debuglink output of --add-gnu-debuglink > > (Hmmm, my list of files does not have any .debug directory!) > > Human beings are good at reading examples and extrapolating > from them, and not as good at handling explicit meta-variables. > Indeed. The comments must be misleading, because the names of the files you listed above are not the correct ones. So I'll add such a comment. The files are gdb.base/break-->original executable gdb.base/break.stripped-->stripped exec gdb.base/.debug/break.debug-->debuginfo only gdb.base/break-->original exec minus debug symbols plus link to the .debug file > I would really like break.debuglink to be a separate file from the > original file. If somebody is debugging this process, it's much better > to have each file be unique. At first thought I'd say no, because that's not what you'll encounter in practice. You would be testing something different. Close but different. I.e. original executable name == name of final executable. Indeed if you get a RedHat distro, you get all stripped binaries, but their names are the usual ones. However, on second thought it may work anyway. I'll play with it. > > In gdb_gnu_strip_debug, what are the final values of "strip_to_file_program" > and "objcopy_program" going to be? I am hoping that they will just be > > set strip_to_file_program strip > set objcopy_program objcopy > yes. I had to tweak them in order to pick up the copies that had the features, the ones installed on the systems were too old. Note the failure mode as well. It produces an unsupported. For the RedHat case, it would pick up eu-strip (but in reality the whole procedure is different anyway). > Well, actually that works only for natives, crosses need more work. > yes. I am not planning on doing that right now. I guess I should make the test work only for natives. > I would say, leave the elfutils case out for now. > yep. > Michael C