From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1497 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2002 16:04:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1310 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 16:04:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 16:04:18 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237593CFE; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:04:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DF6107D.7080708@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:13:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: support debug info in separate files References: <15861.29951.564644.347349@localhost.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00323.txt.bz2 Hmm, to wear fernando's hat :-) Is there a new test that demonstrates this feature? > Some random comments... > > This works only for Elf. Will this interfere when other file formats > are processed? (I haven't tried with a, say, coff file, which is > impossible of course because this is elfutils based). > > > * utils.c (calc_crc32): New function. > > * defs.h (calc_crc32): New declaration. > > Now we have 4 identical crc32's functions in gdb. Any chance to > delete a few? > > For the debug file name suggest looking at HAVE_DOS_BASED_FILE_SYSTEM > in libiberty, and its uses in gdb/source.c. > > [...] > > > + strcat (debugfile, ".debug/"); > [...] > > > + strcat (debugfile, "/"); > > [...] > > + strcat (debugfile, "/"); > > Should these be DIR_SEPARATOR instead? I guess DJGPP doesn't care though. > > In this message, > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-09/msg00312.html I pointed out a > few things that could be done to improve this patch. For instance, > instead of adding a completely new objfile that would be only for the > debug info, add the debug info to the existing objfiles. I haven't > had a chance to see if you changed the patch to do something different > or not. It also seemed at that stage that we were gaining an extra > copy of the minimal symbols, and this can bloat gdb even more. Was > this changed? > > Other comments I pointed out in that message have been addressed by > Alex already. > > Elena > > >