Re: RFA: handle "MiniDebuginfo" section

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 11/16/2012 07:51 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> Pedro> I disagree with artificially making this ELF only.  What you find
> Pedro> stuffed in a .gnu_debugdata section is just another file that
> Pedro> would otherwise be loadable by gdb if it was separate on the
> Pedro> filesystem.  IOW, stuffing the file as compressed binary blob
> Pedro> into .gnu_debugdata is just a replacement for making the file
> Pedro> really separate on the file system.  There's really nothing
> Pedro> container-specific (coff/elf,whatnot) in this.
> 
> What if we require the contents to have the same BFD flavour as the
> container?  

Do we spell out the same requirement for separate debug files?  I still fail
to see why we don't just describe this as what it is, not less nor more: exactly
the same as separate debug file, but instead of being found as a separate file in
the file system, it's tucked along inside the main binary.  This is IMO
the simplest way to document this, because from that perspective, it's not really
anything that much new.  If this view is not really correct, then we should
document what is expected to not work in this mode compared to a real separate
debug file.

-- 
Pedro Alves