From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32606 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2010 17:24:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 32592 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2010 17:24:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-173-76-58-83.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (173.76.58.83) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:24:06 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F33113C0C6; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:23:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id CF9D12B35A; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:23:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:24:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFA/windows] Spurious "dll not found" error messages on x64-windows. Message-ID: <20100211172355.GA17175@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker References: <1265256768-30183-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20100204221752.GA27209@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20100211112157.GD2907@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100211112157.GD2907@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00293.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 03:21:57PM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> Sorry but, I don't think this right. What's the point of issuing the >> error after inferior startup? I think it's only during startup that >> something like this would be useful. >> >> I think making the error a complaint makes more sense. > >Sure. I am not sure when DLLs are unloaded most... I was thinking >more about the case where a user does a LoadLibrary/FreeLibrary. > >Regardless, here is a version that transforms the error into a complaint. >So far, complaints appears to be used only for symbol file events. >It's a tiny bit of a strech to include our complaint in that category, >but I think that creating a different category for that might be >a bit overkill. I don't mind doing so, however. I chose the simpler >approach for now, which gives us the following complaint when they >are activated: > > [New Thread 94404.0x222a8] > During symbol reading, dll starting at 0x77a60000 not found.. > During symbol reading, dll starting at 0x77650000 not found.. > [...] > >The "During symbol reading" is where the complaint category comes >in play. > >Note that the module description in complaints.h says: > > Definitions for complaint handling during symbol reading in GDB. > >But I don't see why this couldn't be used for other purposes (and >hence why we couldn't create new categories if necessary). > >gdb/ChangeLog: > > * windows-nat.c: Add include of complaints.h. > (handle_unload_dll): Change dll-not-found error into a complaint. > >Tested on x86_64-windows with an x86-windows toolchain. Looks good to me. Thanks. cgf