Re: [RFA-v3] win32-nat.c: Add dll names if debugevents is on

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:19:33AM +0200, Pierre Muller wrote:
> Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> a ?crit 
> :
>
>> 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
>> have been moving in that direction and that's good.
>>
>> "set debugevents" is a special case behavior for Windows gdb.  I didn't
>> add it and I've wondered why it was necessary in the first place since I
>> don't recall ever feeling its lack on linux.
>>
>> However, I guess I'll approve the patch since I can see why it would be
>> useful to have this information and it doesn't seem like there is
>> anything else that could be pressed into service in gdb-proper.
>
> Christopher,
>   you didn't reply to my answer to your first email in that thread,
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-06/msg00306.html
> and I am quite confused by your wording?

"I guess I'll approve the patch" means that the patch is approved with
the reservations that I expressed in my message.

>Should I understand this as an approval?  Or is it just because you did
>not see my reply?  I always suppress your email from the recipients
>because of the use-the-mailinglist suffix, but maybe you only mean that
>we should never reply only personnally to you?

I saw your reply.  It reexplained what you were doing and opined that it
might be good for other targets, which was not what I asked.  Pedro
actually answered the question so I responded to him.

cgf