From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 807 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2008 04:04:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 798 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Oct 2008 04:04:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:04:32 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93BC2A96C5; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id bnPb9sYVL7a3; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E672A96C4; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5ED68E7ACD; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 05:19:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: too many "no debugging symbols found" messages from shared libs Message-ID: <20081030040428.GC13387@adacore.com> References: <20081003213402.7739F1C78EB@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081003213402.7739F1C78EB@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00700.txt.bz2 > An alternative patch would be to at least include the file name > in the message. But if we do want to print this message for shared-libs > why should it be predicated on whether the main program is stripped or not? I have to agree that the current situation is confusing. Before looking at the patch itself, the first thing is to agree on what the debugger should be doing at the user level. Perhaps there was a logic behind the current implementation that we're not seeing yet. IMO, a shared library without debugging symbol is a common and perfectly normal occurrence, and thus does not deserve a warning - at least not by default, particularly when the number of SOs becomes large. So I would have to agree with the suggested patch. What do others think? -- Joel