Re: [RFA] Remote symbol look-up (resubmission)

Michael Snyder
2001-05-14T14:34:00Z

Andrew Cagney wrote:
[snip]
> >> because the symbol file wasn't, in its self, useful to the target. The
> >> qSymbol without arguments indicated new symbols were available.
> >
> >
> > The symbol file could be useful to the target. For instance, we could
> > specify to GDB which symbol file was to be used for the lookup. This
> > would be consistent with the usage in the original thread-db spec from Sun.
>
> You've lost me here.
>
> Are you saying that there is going to need to be an extra parameter (the
> shared library name) added to the target->gdb symbol request on Solaris?

No, I'm saying it could potentially be useful to pass back the filename.
Not that I think it is necessary. The underlying mechanism that would
use this method on Solaris has a symbol-file-name argument. We don't
currently use it. Someday we might. Just keeping the option open.

> That would make it:
>
> qSymbol:<symbol> [ : <library> ]
>
> >> However, if you think the target should be notified of each new symbol
> >> file then I'd rather see protocol go back to ``[qQ]SymbolFile:<file>''
> >> followed by ``[qQ]Symbol:<val>:<sym>'' rather than the very subtlely
> >> different ``QSymbol'' vs ``qSymbol''.
> >
> >
> > I'll be glad to go back to that syntax.
>
> If it can be justified.
>
> Remember, it is really important to get these protocol changes right.
> Unlike gdb internals, this is an external interface and once defined is
> largely set in concrete.

I am passing the filename because I believe it could be potentially useful.
In my present implementation I do not use it. But that's just one
implementation. As you point out, once its in it's hard to change.
It would be a pity to take it out, and then later discover that we
needed it in a different implementation.

But just tell me what you want, and I will do it.

Michael