Re: [RFA 2/5] Darwin: Handle unrelocated dyld.

[Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>]

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:

>> +	 (Apparently dyld doesn't need to relocate itself on x86-64 darwin,
>> +	 but don't assume that).

Joel> I am wondering whether the difference in what you are seeing
Joel> might be explained by a difference in MacOS X version; if I were
Joel> to guess, I would say that Xavier was running on Mac OS X Sierra.
Joel> What version were you running on?

High Sierra.

Joel> Or perhaps the intent is to be extra careful meaning that while
Joel> today the relocation is not necessary, we still handle it so that
Joel> it continues working the day it becomes so?

I couldn't really say, I just concluded what I did based on the mention
of the specific architecture there.

Joel> If the comment above is confusing, I would vote for removing it.

I think we need more information.

If we remove the comment because we think it is untrue, then Simon's
original critique of the patch -- that there is no reason for a second
solib breakpoint -- seems correct.  And in this case we should remove a
chunk of the patch.

Based on my testing thus far, this would be fine.  But I don't know what
testing Xavier and Tristan did, or with what architectures.

Also my testing hasn't been exactly exhaustive.  I just try simple
things because today those break.

Now, for my purposes, it would be fine to land the more minimal patch.
That would not preclude adding this code back later.  If that seems ok,
I'm happy to do it.  I'd like to get this working so I can make some
progress on other patches, and anyway un-break the Mac port.

Joel> That makes me realize (again) that, for MacOS X, we should be more
Joel> proactive at specificying which version a patch we are submitting
Joel> was tested on, and some information about which versions of MacOS X
Joel> a given patch helps. A fair amount of work that Tristan did once
Joel> the initial port was created was to adapt it to subsequent versions
Joel> of Darwin. Nearly every new version of Darwin introduced its new
Joel> set of changes requiring additional adaptations.

Wholly agreed.

Tom