From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 46757 invoked by alias); 6 May 2015 15:20:08 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 46733 invoked by uid 89); 6 May 2015 15:20:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 06 May 2015 15:20:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t46FK3ZA013840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 6 May 2015 11:20:03 -0400 Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-21.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.21]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t46FK1f3021027; Wed, 6 May 2015 11:20:02 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D99EF263C97; Wed, 6 May 2015 16:20:00 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 15:20:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Philippe Waroquiers Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make only user-specified executable filenames sticky Message-ID: <20150506152000.GB29283@blade.nx> References: <20150505151448.GA1417@blade.nx> <1430907977-30605-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <554A06C7.6020604@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <554A06C7.6020604@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00106.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On 05/06/2015 11:26 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > > In GDB some executable files are supplied by the user (e.g. using > > a "file" command) and some are determined by GDB (e.g. while > > processing an "attach" command). GDB will not attempt to > > determine a filename if one has been set. This causes problems if > > you attach to one process and then attach to another: GDB will not > > attempt to discover the main executable on the second attach. If > > the two processes have different main executable files then the > > symbols will now be wrong. > > > > This commit updates GDB to keep track of which executable > > filenames were supplied by the user. When GDB might attempt to > > determine an executable filename and one is already set, filenames > > determined by GDB may be overridden but user-supplied filenames > > will not. > > I have a feeling this would be simpler if the flag's sense was > reversed? That is, mark the exec as auto-discovered instead of > marking it user-loaded. I'm easy either way. I spent about four hours trying to name the flag (and thinking about making it an enum) so right now I'm about ready to be told what to do :) I think having the sense the other way around would make the checks more complex, you'd have to check for exec_file being empty as well as being auto-discovered. If the user set it it isn't empty. > How does this interact with "symbol-file FILE" ? I'm not sure... badly? :) exec_file_locate_attach (the bit that does the auto-discovery) does both exec_file_attach and symbol_file_add_main. file_command also does both, albeit indirectly, and add_inferior_command does both too. But, on startup you can specify separate symbol file, and of course you can use the symbol-file command. I don't really know in what circumstances you would use a separate symbol file. Should they both be protected individually do you think? I'm leaning that way. > This fixes PR 17626 (so please add that to the ChangeLog), which is > marked as duplicate of PR 16266 currently, but in a different way > than 16266 suggests. > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16266 > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17626 Ok. > I think this needs a NEWS entry, and probably a tweak to the > manual somewhere. Ok. > > --- a/gdb/exec.h > > +++ b/gdb/exec.h > > @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ struct objfile; > > #define exec_bfd current_program_space->ebfd > > #define exec_bfd_mtime current_program_space->ebfd_mtime > > #define exec_filename current_program_space->pspace_exec_filename > > +#define user_supplied_exec_file_p \ > > + current_program_space->pspace_user_supplied_exec_file_p > > Nit, but I'd suggest 'exec_file_is_user_supplied', which would > fit the pattern of vars related to the exec being prefixed exec_. Ok. Or exec_file_is_sticky (and symfile_is_sticky)? > > --- a/gdb/progspace.h > > +++ b/gdb/progspace.h > > @@ -154,6 +154,13 @@ struct program_space > > It needs to be freed by xfree. It is not NULL iff EBFD is not NULL. */ > > char *pspace_exec_filename; > > > > + /* Nonzero if pspace_exec_filename was supplied by the user, > > + either at startup (on the command-line) or via a "file" > > + an "add-inferior -exec" command. Zero if > > Sounds like an "or" is missing between the commands. Got it. Thanks, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/