From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-71372-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 20811 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2010 20:18:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 20802 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Mar 2010 20:18:38 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:18:35 +0000
Received: (qmail 14349 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2010 20:18:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 24 Mar 2010 20:18:33 -0000
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:18:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix separate-debug with non-unique section names (PR   11409)
Message-ID: <20100324201825.GA31992@caradoc.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>, 	Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <20100323205655.GA12124@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>  <m339zpk0gg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>  <20100324200943.GA12225@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100324200943.GA12225@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00817.txt.bz2

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:09:43PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> While the algorithm could be much more clever - if we ever need to resync at
> the point of non-unique section names the files are too different it makes no
> sence to try to match them by addr_info_make_relative at all.

What if we assume that in a valid separate debug file, the only
sections that will be different will have been totally stripped from
either the before or after file?

IOW:

  i = 0 // index in main file
  j = 0 // index in separate file
  for each section in main file:
    if (section names match)
      good
    else if (section i's name is not present in separate file)
      i++, continue
    else if (section j's name is not present in separate file)
      j++, continue
    else
      complain that the two files do not match

?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery