From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30395 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2008 03:32:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 30387 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2008 03:32:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:32:05 +0000 Received: (qmail 6983 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2008 03:32:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 16 Jun 2008 03:32:03 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA-v3] win32-nat.c: Add dll names if debugevents is on Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 06:38:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Christopher Faylor References: <000001c8cd57$c9cf3d30$5d6db790$@u-strasbg.fr> <000101c8cdaa$3717cc20$a5476460$@u-strasbg.fr> <20080615225330.GA7678@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20080615225330.GA7678@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806160432.06714.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00304.txt.bz2 A Sunday 15 June 2008 23:53:30, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I guess my basic question here is why is this needed at all? Does > the non-windows version of gdb have something similar? If so, this > should be patterned after that. If not, why is Windows special? Well, with set "set verbose 1" you can see dll names being read in already, but you also get a lot more. This is just a couple of lines to add some debug output. Note that it can't be much patterned (without some extra hair) other than printing the so name, because the solib.c doesn't know a thing about each solib's struct lm_info implementation. Then again, I only suggested to add the image base to the output because it was handy... Anyway, I've already spent more time in this thread than it takes to add debug output locally every time I'd need it. It's in Pierre's court to argue. ;-) -- Pedro Alves