Re: shared libraries and a remote target

[Stephen Smith <ischis2@home.com>]

I just looked at the code.  I knew there was a reason why I used add_symbol_file_command rather than symbol_file_add:
the string that comes back from the gdb server is in the form of a command line with identical format to what
add_symbol_file_command expects and what the user enters in a console window.  I didn't think that it would be wise to
duplicate the code.

What do you think?  Would you rather that I wrote parsing code - I don't mind.


Elena Zannoni wrote:

> Stephen Smith writes:
>  > I am re-submitting the patch contained in this email.  The the last of the discussion  is at
>  >      http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2001-03/msg00234.html
>  >
>  > and the original patch submittal is at
>  >
>  >     http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2001-04/msg00185.html
>  >
>  > The patches still apply cleanly to the development tree - I tried this morning.
>  >
>  > Thanks
>  > sps
>  >
>
> Hi Stephen, thanks for your submission.
>
> Instead of using add_symbol_file_command, you should use
> symbol_file_add, which is already exported (this would take
> symfile.[ch] out of the picture). See its usage in other gdb files.
> I believe this would be ok for your purposes.
>
> Thanks
> Elena
>