Re: [patch] Fix separate-debug with non-unique section names (PR 11409)

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:00:16 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Thanks... for future reference, and for anybody following along, it is
> also ok to push back on questions like that if you think they are bad
> ideas.  Like we discussed on irc, I couldn't really tell from this reply
> what you thought of it.

I have to admit I do not believe there would ever be seen any real world
functionality difference between the first 14-liner and this 126-liner.

But I agree this second/checked-in patch is a more complete/safe solution for
the problem.  So if there have popped up concerns about the first patch and
GDB maintainers agree to accept the larger codebase of the more complete/safe
solution the technical cost of coding such implementation I find more
appropriate than arguing about it.


> A small typo: s/underfined/undefined/

Fixed.

> This patch looks good to me.  It is ok.

Checked-in:
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2010-03/msg00241.html


Now the question remains what to use for gdb_7_1-branch as it fixes
a regression (by me) from gdb-7.0 as described in the first mail:
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-03/msg00799.html

I would even suggest the first simple variant of the patch from that mail.


Thanks,
Jan