From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24989 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2009 01:55:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 24870 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2009 01:55:00 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-98-110-183-121.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (98.110.183.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:54:53 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD12B3B0008; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:54:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 503802B388; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:54:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:55:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Joel Brobecker , Pierre Muller Subject: Re: [RFA/Windows] Remove ADD_SHARED_SYMBOL_FILES macro Message-ID: <20090623015441.GA19762@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Joel Brobecker , Pierre Muller References: <003d01c9d4e2$987399a0$c95acce0$@u-strasbg.fr> <006e01c9dd14$5a9cf510$0fd6df30$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090525225725.GI23016@adacore.com> <200905260014.02926.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090622204950.GC7766@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090622204950.GC7766@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00600.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 01:49:50PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: >[trying to catch up on email...] > >> On Monday 25 May 2009 23:57:25, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> > > (_initialize _symfile): Move "add-shared-symbol-files" >> > > command and "assf" alias. >> > > * windows-nat.c (_initialize_windows_nat): to here. >> > > Change "add-shared-symbol-files" to alias. >> > >> > I propose we deprecate these aliases as well; does it really make sense >> > to have 2 identical commands? >> > >> >>Well, let me go the other way around. Why is "dll-symbols" needed at >>all? Why isn't "add-symbol-file" good enough? Other than the ugly >>safe_symbol_file_add hack that would be nice to get rid of, and setting >>OBJF_SHARED (itself dubious) it doesn't have anything Windows specific >>at all (magically appending ".dll" doesn't count). > >I would love to get rid of these commands if they are indeed equivalent >to add-symbol-file. I assumed that there was a reason for the >different command name. Chris, do you remember? (gdb) add-symbol-file cygwin1.dll The address where cygwin1.dll has been loaded is missing (gdb) dll cygwin1.dll (gdb) l dll_crt0 952 _main_tls = &_my_tls; 953 _main_tls->call ((DWORD (*) (void *, void *)) dll_crt0_1, NULL); 954 } 955 956 void 957 dll_crt0 (per_process *uptr) 958 { 959 /* Set the local copy of the pointer into the user space. */ 960 if (!in_forkee && uptr && uptr != user_data) 961 { As I have previously mentioned, the commands are not equivalent. cgf