From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9130 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2003 14:44:29 -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 9122 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2003 14:44:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Nov 2003 14:44:28 -0000 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id C67271A42DB; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:44:27 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16306.18251.628820.803325@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:44:00 -0000 To: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (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: <20031111211924.9D4F94B361@berman.michael-chastain.com> References: <20031111211924.9D4F94B361@berman.michael-chastain.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00234.txt.bz2 Michael Elizabeth Chastain writes: > Hi Elena, > > Ah, I was mixing two things together. I definitely prefer the doco > in the format above. That's one thing. I was also adding in my own > preferences for the file names. That's a different thing. > I agree with you about the comment needing to be more explicit. > I like gdb.base/break.sym or gdb.base/break.debug a lot more than > gdb.base/.debug/break.debug. That keeps all the files parallel > instead of some files inside a dot directory. > Can't do this one. This is the way that gdb is doing the search, the default configuration is such that it looks into the .debug subdirectory. However, you bring up another valid point, which is that there is a command in gdb that allows you to change the default location of the debug files. And I forgot to add that to the test. I think I'll do the default location, then move/copy the .debug file and test the gdb command that changes the location. > > I see your point. And I see that you see my point. :) I guess > I'm on your side now. It's important to test what people actually do. > Although if I were building these things as end user of gcc/binutils/gdb, > I would build: > > break.full # full debugging info > break.stripped # stripped executable > break.sym # symbols > break.ship # break.full - symbols + link to break.sym > break # copy of break.ship > yes, true. But the distros are coming out with the weird name scheme. In reality it doesn't make much of a difference. I can change the name of the final executable in the testcase, and I tried that, no difference. > Oh, yeah, I also like the MS-DOS convention of 'break.exe' > and I would like to change Unix to do that also. So I have > weird taste. > er.... elena