From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28744 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2010 20:38:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 28735 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2010 20:38:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:38:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2PKcofg027029 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:38:50 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2PKclXE012339 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:38:49 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2PKclE1027708; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:38:47 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o2PKckTe027701; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:38:46 +0100 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:38:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix separate-debug with non-unique section names (PR 11409) Message-ID: <20100325203846.GA27212@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20100323205655.GA12124@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100324200943.GA12225@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100324201825.GA31992@caradoc.them.org> <20100324203252.GA17319@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100325145913.GA26968@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00862.txt.bz2 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