From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16241 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2013 17:53:30 -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 16229 invoked by uid 89); 9 Sep 2013 17:53:30 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:53:30 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r89HrRTM012193 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:53:27 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-132.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.132]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r89HrPDA007510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:53:26 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [patchv2] Support .dwp with the name of symlinked binary file References: <20130905131839.GA8618@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:53:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:29:09 -0700") Message-ID: <87fvtdkhka.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00303.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> Also, it may be that not all objfiles have a bfd (I don't remember off Doug> hand, but whether it's true or not is irrelevant to my point), and if Doug> not all objfiles have a bfd we can't just remove objfile->name Doug> (assuming objfiles-without-bfds have a name). There are objfiles without a BFD. E.g., Java makes one. Maybe the JIT stuff too. These do still have a name -- objfiles are required to have a name. Doug> OTOH, if objfiles-without-bfds have a name, we could store it in a Doug> different place (objfile->foo_name), and thus still effectively have Doug> an implementation that only maintains one name, not two I don't understand this. It doesn't seem any different from the present situation. I think it is fine if you want to have different names for printing and for canonical use. It's also ok to change the BFD cache to work differently (it realpaths since that is convenient and gets good caching behavior; but you could store some other form of the path instead and accept cache misses). It's worth noting that sometimes it is useful to see the full path. E.g., it can be a way to notice that gdb or the inferior is doing something unexpected. Tom