From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 36600 invoked by alias); 11 May 2015 13:58:23 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 36582 invoked by uid 89); 11 May 2015 13:58:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 11 May 2015 13:58:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t4BDwJNN009419 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 May 2015 09:58:19 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t4BDwG0s027503; Mon, 11 May 2015 09:58:17 -0400 Message-ID: <5550B578.6050602@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 13:58:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Benson , Philippe Waroquiers CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make only user-specified executable filenames sticky References: <20150505151448.GA1417@blade.nx> <1430907977-30605-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <1430923587.2177.4.camel@soleil> <20150506154138.GA24836@blade.nx> In-Reply-To: <20150506154138.GA24836@blade.nx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2 On 05/06/2015 04:41 PM, Gary Benson wrote: > Philippe Waroquiers wrote: >> On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:26 +0100, Gary Benson wrote: >>> In GDB some executable files are supplied by the user (e.g. using >>> a "file" command) and some are determined by GDB (e.g. while >>> processing an "attach" command). GDB will not attempt to >>> determine a filename if one has been set. This causes problems if >>> you attach to one process and then attach to another: GDB will not >>> attempt to discover the main executable on the second attach. If >>> the two processes have different main executable files then the >>> symbols will now be wrong. >>> >>> This commit updates GDB to keep track of which executable >>> filenames were supplied by the user. When GDB might attempt to >>> determine an executable filename and one is already set, filenames >>> determined by GDB may be overridden but user-supplied filenames >>> will not. >> >> If not overriding the file set by the user, maybe GDB could/should >> give a warning when the exec-file reported by the target does not >> match the file as set by the user ? Giving a warning may be be good. Note sure whether basing it on file name alone would be noisy. Basing the warning on GNU build-id as suggested on PR 16266 would be bullet proof. > > I'm wondering whether we should always override the executable file, > and treat the symbol file as the special one. Pedro? Not sure about that. Sounds like "file program1" + "attach program2" would end up with the symbol file pointing to program1? Not seeing how that would be useful, but maybe if you detail the idea it gets clearer. Thanks, Pedro Alves