From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Remote symbol look-up (resubmission)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 20:44:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B049A7C.1040306@cygnus.com>
References: <3AFC20A5.700ACFAF@cygnus.com> <3AFCA688.5060904@cygnus.com> <3B002163.D17BFA0E@cygnus.com> <3B004215.5040502@cygnus.com> <3B004F51.4C9DC055@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00350.html

> 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.


In that case I'd prefer at this point to leave the the symbol-file 
passing out.  Instead just stick to a single simple qSymbol packet.  The 
behavour would be:

	To start a transaction sequence:

		-> qSymbol

	It could even be:

		-> qSymbol::

	If you want simplicity and consistency.

	The reply would be as you proposed:

		<- ""
			Not recognized
		<- "OK"
			Recognized but not now
		<- <the-I-want-a-symbol-address>
			As you've described

	From then on it is:

		-> qSymbol:<addr>:<symbol>

I don't think it is a good idea to try to include a mechanism for 
passing back and forth the name of an object file until there is a 
demonstrated need for such a feature.

The reason for this is that, in the past GDB has incorporated what look 
like very reasonable idea's only to find that, when someone uses them, 
they are insufficient.

	Andrew