From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 499 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2012 14:41:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 390 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Nov 2012 14:41:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:41:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAJEexPu002691 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:41:00 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAJEerJh012177; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:40:58 -0500 Message-ID: <50AA44F4.9020609@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:41:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121029 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: handle "MiniDebuginfo" section References: <87wqxuel5k.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87zk2mbym3.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <877gpp8i67.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <50A29B8B.7050606@redhat.com> <87r4nx5ih1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87390c40ys.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20643.62177.106208.211209@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <50A4CF6D.40207@redhat.com> <87r4nttjgl.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87r4nttjgl.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00494.txt.bz2 On 11/16/2012 07:51 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves 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