From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Snyder To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remote symbol look-up (resubmission) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:12:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B0992C1.8DDD40D9@cygnus.com> References: <3AFC20A5.700ACFAF@cygnus.com> <3AFCA688.5060904@cygnus.com> <3B002163.D17BFA0E@cygnus.com> <3B004215.5040502@cygnus.com> <3B004F51.4C9DC055@cygnus.com> <3B049A7C.1040306@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00405.html Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > 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 > <- > As you've described > > From then on it is: > > -> qSymbol:: > > 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. OK, Andrew, I will go along with your suggestions.