Re: [PATCH] gdb: Introduce user-friendly namespace identifier for "info shared"

[Guinevere Larsen <guinevere@redhat.com>]

On 3/15/25 12:11 AM, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 19:51:08 -0700
> Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:00:05 -0300
>> Guinevere Larsen <guinevere@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Finally, a new solib_ops function pointer was added, find_solib_ns, to
>>> allow code outside of solib-svr4 to find and use the namespace
>>> identifiers. As a sanity check, the command `info sharedlibraries` has
>>> been changed to display the namespace identifier. Plus, a couple of tests
>>> had to be tweaked to handle the possible new column.
>> I applied the patch, built GDB, and ran the tests.  But I didn't
>> see the new NS column in any of the "info shared"/"info sharedlibrary"
>> output.  Should I have seen this column?  (I.e, did I do something
>> wrong?)  Assuming that I didn't mess up, I think it'd be good to add
>> some tests which show the new column.
> So... I screwed up when attempting to resolve the "git am" problem.
> I guess I need to figure out how to correctly use "git am --continue".
>
> I now see the NS column in the "info shared" output.  But, now, I *always*
> see it in the "info shared" output, even when there's only one linker
> namespace.  Is that desirable?
I did that on purpose, as long as you're using solib-svr4 (which is the 
only namespace-capable solib handler that I'm aware of) you'd see the 
column. My reasoning was that when I didn't see part of an output that i 
didn't understand, I personally would just ignore it, but I wasn't sure 
my approach was the best.
>
> My opinion is that we should suppress the NS column when there's
> only one linker namespace.

I can give this a shot, but in my head there are 2 ways of implementing it:

1. If there is more than one linker namespace *active* when the command 
is run;
2. If there is more than one linker namespace *registered* when the 
command is run;

The main difference is: if the inferior has opened an SO in a namespace, 
but has since closed it and everything loaded is in the default 
namespace, should we still have the NS column? The first is closer to a 
future plan of having an "active namespaces" convenience variable, while 
the second is brand new code that I don't expect to use anywhere else, 
but I can see an argument for it, so which do you prefer?

-- 
Cheers,
Guinevere Larsen
She/Her/Hers

>
> Kevin
>