From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9665 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2008 17:10:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 9657 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jun 2008 17:10:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-71-248-179-123.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO ednor.cgf.cx) (71.248.179.123) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:09:52 +0000 Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id BCBA0608C62; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:21:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA-v3] win32-nat.c: Add dll names if debugevents is on Message-ID: <20080617170950.GA15746@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <000001c8cd57$c9cf3d30$5d6db790$@u-strasbg.fr> <000101c8cdaa$3717cc20$a5476460$@u-strasbg.fr> <20080615225330.GA7678@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <200806160432.06714.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080617042351.GA13112@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080617042351.GA13112@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) 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/msg00319.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:23:51AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 04:32:06AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: >>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. ;-) > >Ok. This is the kind of response I was looking for. > >I'd like to have as little special case stuff in gdb as possible. We ^ the windows version of >have been moving in that direction and that's good. cgf