From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9687 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2012 22:04:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 9678 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2012 22:04:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-vw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.212.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:04:41 +0000 Received: by vbip1 with SMTP id p1so3288429vbi.0 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:04:40 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dje@google.com designates 10.52.177.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.52.177.38; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dje@google.com designates 10.52.177.38 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dje@google.com; dkim=pass header.i=dje@google.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.52.177.38]) by 10.52.177.38 with SMTP id cn6mr5050729vdc.8.1329516280391 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:04:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.177.38 with SMTP id cn6mr4086338vdc.8.1329516280333; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:04:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.177.38 with SMTP id cn6mr4086334vdc.8.1329516280254; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:04:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.162.7 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:04:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120216103751.GA3378@redhat.com> References: <20120213184700.GA31170@redhat.com> <20120214090204.GA2839@redhat.com> <20120215094752.GA2712@redhat.com> <20120216103751.GA3378@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA take 4] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738) From: Doug Evans To: gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlG7/gXdOc1rZeKHQWQL51wiH58b/7x+mWg+42LzHtpaYvHuVn7eUC1qyLTkmVnIL9NzjWjONAj11QQ+m9CctcPZv7di2NhbpeCMsRjbZJlzkDbzZpTaQyJcsQhndySW1X0Acipt9YYBYOE1fTmCjXAARwP5Q== X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Gary Benson wrote: >> > > The user's build procedure may involve building the index in a >> > > way that is not easily updated in a timely manner. =A0Thus all the >> > > speed improvements are (at least temporarily, but for a long >> > > enough time to be troublesome) wiped out simply by using a >> > > *newer* version of gdb. =A0And that makes me uncomfortable. >> > >> > How would it be if there the default behaviour was be to reject >> > old indexes (as the patch does now) but with the addition of a >> > flag ("maint set allow-old-gdb-indexes" perhaps?) that would allow >> > users in this particular situation to get around it? =A0That way, >> > our response to complaints can be "rebuild the index *or* use this >> > flag (which by the way will lose you such and such a >> > functionality)" =A0Inconsistent behaviour doesn't seem so bad if the >> > user asked for it. >> >> IWBN if one could do "gdb my-binary-with-older-index" (as opposed >> to, e.g., "gdb ; maint set ... ; file my-binary-with-older-index", >> or the equivalent with -x/-ex foo, and setting the flag in >> ./.gdbinit won't work). =A0That pretty much means passing gdb an >> option ("gdb --use-old-index my-binary" or some such). =A0At Google >> we've added --disable-gdb-index as an escape hatch against broken >> indices. =A0I'm happy to replace it with something that will do the >> same thing. >> >> As for what the default behaviour should be, I don't have a strong >> enough opinion to want to defend it. =A0I can easily enough change it >> here if desired. =A0[Not something unfamiliar to Redhat. :-)] > > Ok, so my plan is to implement an --allow-incomplete-gdb-index option > that will turn on support for version 4 and 5 indexes. [recognizing one tries not to bikeshed except when one thinks it's important enough ...] --allow-deprecated-gdb-index ? > I am unsure > as to whether to add printed warnings, but I'm leaning towards not > having warnings in either configuration. =A0With the default setting > GDB will work correctly, but may possibly be slow which would be the > (admittedly not very direct) trigger for the user to investigate. > With the option supplied I assume the user knows what they're doing, > so they don't need pestering! "works for me" > I like the *idea* of warning users > that their .gdb-index sections are being skipped, but I think of the > case where somebody uses a new GDB on an older version of Fedora (say) > being flooded with warning messages about every single shared library > their program is linked to. One can solve that by printing the warning at most once and providing a way to see the entire list. But I don't have a strong enough opinion to push for implementing it.