From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30373 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2008 01:43:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 30365 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2008 01:43:34 -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; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:43:08 +0000 Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id D02A5626010; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:33:00 -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: <20080618014306.GB16859@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> <20080618001933.tgxx233giok4gk4g@webmail.u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080618001933.tgxx233giok4gk4g@webmail.u-strasbg.fr> 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/msg00329.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:19:33AM +0200, Pierre Muller wrote: > Christopher Faylor 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