From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3137 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2008 22:45:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 2975 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Nov 2008 22:45:00 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:44:23 +0000 Received: from zps76.corp.google.com (zps76.corp.google.com [172.25.146.76]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id mA7MiHKQ003744 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 22:44:17 GMT Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rvfb17.prod.google.com [10.140.179.17]) by zps76.corp.google.com with ESMTP id mA7MiFgf014949 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:44:16 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so1630198rvf.48 for ; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:44:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.29.21 with SMTP id g21mr2059864rvj.44.1226097855761; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:44:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20081030040428.GC13387@adacore.com> References: <20081003213402.7739F1C78EB@localhost> <20081030040428.GC13387@adacore.com> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: too many "no debugging symbols found" messages from shared libs From: Doug Evans To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00141.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> An alternative patch would be to at least include the file name >> in the message. But if we do want to print this message for shared-libs >> why should it be predicated on whether the main program is stripped or not? > > I have to agree that the current situation is confusing. Before looking > at the patch itself, the first thing is to agree on what the debugger > should be doing at the user level. Perhaps there was a logic behind > the current implementation that we're not seeing yet. > > IMO, a shared library without debugging symbol is a common and perfectly > normal occurrence, and thus does not deserve a warning - at least not > by default, particularly when the number of SOs becomes large. So I > would have to agree with the suggested patch. > > What do others think? ping.