From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Smith To: Elena Zannoni Cc: Andrew Cagney , GDB patches , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: shared libraries and a remote target Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:31:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B571971.4FCB0087@home.com> References: <3B55CD58.13771694@home.com> <15189.59080.526458.935802@krustylu.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00476.html 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 >