From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10473 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2003 21:19:20 -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 10466 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2003 21:19:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mclean.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.57) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 2003 21:19:20 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AJfux-0001Rt-00; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:19:19 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 9D4F94B361; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:19:24 -0500 (EST) To: ezannoni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/WIP] unit test for separate debug info Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20031111211924.9D4F94B361@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:19:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00223.txt.bz2 Hi Elena, mec> gdb.base/break original executable mec> gdb.base/break.stripped stripped executable mec> gdb.base/break.sym debug symbols mec> gdb.base/break.debuglink output of --add-gnu-debuglink eza> gdb.base/break-->original executable eza> gdb.base/break.stripped-->stripped exec eza> gdb.base/.debug/break.debug-->debuginfo only eza> gdb.base/break-->original exec minus debug symbols plus link to the .debug file 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 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. mec> I would really like break.debuglink to be a separate file from the mec> original file. If somebody is debugging this process, it's much better mec> to have each file be unique. eza> At first thought I'd say no, because that's not what you'll encounter eza> in practice. You would be testing something different. Close but eza> different. 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 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. Michael C