[patch] Fix false warning: Shared library is missing debugging information.

[patch] Fix false warning: Shared library is missing debugging information.

[Jan Kratochvil]

Hi,

since
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2009-08/msg00134.html
	commit 28bc5797a9be8409c7f78881f93fff58c4e9d6ed
	Author: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
GDB prints:
	(gdb) info sharedlibrary 
	From                To                  Syms Read   Shared Object Library
	0x000000362de00af0  0x000000362de18344  Yes (*)     /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
	0x000000362ea05390  0x000000362ea107c8  Yes (*)     /lib64/libpthread.so.0
	0x000000362e21e860  0x000000362e32597c  Yes (*)     /lib64/libc.so.6
	(*): Shared library is missing debugging information.
	(gdb) _

despite the system has full separate debug info files installed.

This "Shared library is missing debugging information." message was a response
on a wish by Pedro Alves:
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-07/msg00086.html
	We do have a "Syms Read" column in info shared's output, maybe we
	should extend that from "Yes, No" -> "Yes,
	Sorry-I've-tried-but-didn't-find-any, No".

So the case when debug info has been found - although in a separate debug info
file - should be IMO the case "Yes" and not the case
"Sorry-I've-tried-but-didn't-find-any".

With the patch GDB now prints in the same case:
	(gdb) info sharedlibrary 
	From                To                  Syms Read   Shared Object Library
	0x000000362de00af0  0x000000362de18344  Yes         /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
	0x000000362ea05390  0x000000362ea107c8  Yes         /lib64/libpthread.so.0
	0x000000362e21e860  0x000000362e32597c  Yes         /lib64/libc.so.6
	(gdb) _


No regressions on {x86_64,x86_64-m32,i686}-fedora12-linux-gnu.


Thanks,
Jan


2010-01-11  Jan Kratochvil  <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>

	* solib.c (info_sharedlibrary_command): New variable objfile,
	initialize it.  Prefer checking symbols for separate debug info file.

--- a/gdb/solib.c
+++ b/gdb/solib.c
@@ -842,6 +842,7 @@ info_sharedlibrary_command (char *pattern, int from_tty)
   for (so = so_list_head; so; so = so->next)
     {
       struct cleanup *lib_cleanup;
+      struct objfile *objfile;
 
       if (! so->so_name[0])
 	continue;
@@ -861,10 +862,16 @@ info_sharedlibrary_command (char *pattern, int from_tty)
 	  ui_out_field_skip (uiout, "to");
 	}
 
+      /* We just check the state of any single separate debug info file, if
+	 such one exists.  */
+      objfile = so->objfile;
+      if (objfile->separate_debug_objfile)
+	objfile = objfile->separate_debug_objfile;
+
       if (! ui_out_is_mi_like_p (interp_ui_out (top_level_interpreter ()))
 	  && so->symbols_loaded
-	  && !objfile_has_partial_symbols (so->objfile)
-	  && !objfile_has_full_symbols (so->objfile))
+	  && !objfile_has_partial_symbols (objfile)
+	  && !objfile_has_full_symbols (objfile))
 	{
 	  so_missing_debug_info = 1;
 	  ui_out_field_string (uiout, "syms-read", "Yes (*)");

Re: [patch] Fix false warning: Shared library is missing debugging information.

[Tristan Gingold]

On Jan 11, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:

> Hi,

[...]

> despite the system has full separate debug info files installed.
> 
> This "Shared library is missing debugging information." message was a response

[...]

> --- a/gdb/solib.c
> +++ b/gdb/solib.c
> @@ -842,6 +842,7 @@ info_sharedlibrary_command (char *pattern, int from_tty)
>   for (so = so_list_head; so; so = so->next)
>     {
>       struct cleanup *lib_cleanup;
> +      struct objfile *objfile;
> 
>       if (! so->so_name[0])
> 	continue;
> @@ -861,10 +862,16 @@ info_sharedlibrary_command (char *pattern, int from_tty)
> 	  ui_out_field_skip (uiout, "to");
> 	}
> 
> +      /* We just check the state of any single separate debug info file, if
> +	 such one exists.  */
> +      objfile = so->objfile;
> +      if (objfile->separate_debug_objfile)
> +	objfile = objfile->separate_debug_objfile;
> +
>       if (! ui_out_is_mi_like_p (interp_ui_out (top_level_interpreter ()))
> 	  && so->symbols_loaded
> -	  && !objfile_has_partial_symbols (so->objfile)
> -	  && !objfile_has_full_symbols (so->objfile))
> +	  && !objfile_has_partial_symbols (objfile)
> +	  && !objfile_has_full_symbols (objfile))
> 	{
> 	  so_missing_debug_info = 1;
> 	  ui_out_field_string (uiout, "syms-read", "Yes (*)");

I think you should use !objfile_has_symbols (so->objfile) instead.

It is somewhat wrong to check objfile->separate_debug_objfile without checking the whole chain, because the
chain has no particular order.

(Of course, this only concerns Darwin but who knows in the future :-)

Thank you for improving the user experience,
Tristan.

Re: [patch] Fix false warning: Shared library is missing debugging information.

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:22:06 +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> I think you should use !objfile_has_symbols (so->objfile) instead.

OK, missed that function, thanks.


> It is somewhat wrong to check objfile->separate_debug_objfile without
> checking the whole chain, because the chain has no particular order.

When thinking more about it it is probably more important than I thought.  One
can have one of the .o files stripped while not the other ones.


On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:23:46 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> separate_debug_objfile is now a list, so shouldn't you now look
> over them all (main and all seperate objfiles) for symbols?

yes...


No regressions on {x86_64,x86_64-m32,i686}-fedora12-linux-gnu.


Thanks,
Jan


2010-01-11  Jan Kratochvil  <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
	    Tristan Gingold  <gingold@adacore.com>

	* solib.c (info_sharedlibrary_command): Replace
	objfile_has_partial_symbols and objfile_has_full_symbols calls by
	objfile_has_symbols.

--- a/gdb/solib.c
+++ b/gdb/solib.c
@@ -863,8 +863,7 @@ info_sharedlibrary_command (char *pattern, int from_tty)
 
       if (! ui_out_is_mi_like_p (interp_ui_out (top_level_interpreter ()))
 	  && so->symbols_loaded
-	  && !objfile_has_partial_symbols (so->objfile)
-	  && !objfile_has_full_symbols (so->objfile))
+	  && !objfile_has_symbols (so->objfile))
 	{
 	  so_missing_debug_info = 1;
 	  ui_out_field_string (uiout, "syms-read", "Yes (*)");

Re: [patch] Fix false warning: Shared library is missing debugging information.

[Pedro Alves]

On Monday 11 January 2010 16:07:20, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> 2010-01-11  Jan Kratochvil  <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
>             Tristan Gingold  <gingold@adacore.com>
> 
>         * solib.c (info_sharedlibrary_command): Replace
>         objfile_has_partial_symbols and objfile_has_full_symbols calls by
>         objfile_has_symbols.
> 

This is OK.  Thanks.

-- 
Pedro Alves

Re: [patch] Fix false warning: Shared library is missing debugging information.

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:14:22 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Monday 11 January 2010 16:07:20, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > 2010-01-11  Jan Kratochvil  <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> >             Tristan Gingold  <gingold@adacore.com>
> > 
> >         * solib.c (info_sharedlibrary_command): Replace
> >         objfile_has_partial_symbols and objfile_has_full_symbols calls by
> >         objfile_has_symbols.
> > 
> 
> This is OK.  Thanks.

Checked-in:
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2010-01/msg00093.html


Thanks,
Jan

Re: [patch] Fix false warning: Shared library is missing debugging information.

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:

Jan> 2010-01-11  Jan Kratochvil  <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Jan> 	    Tristan Gingold  <gingold@adacore.com>
Jan> 	* solib.c (info_sharedlibrary_command): Replace
Jan> 	objfile_has_partial_symbols and objfile_has_full_symbols calls by
Jan> 	objfile_has_symbols.

Looks good.  This is ok.

Tom

Re: [patch] Fix false warning: Shared library is missing debugging information.

[Pedro Alves]

On Monday 11 January 2010 15:12:58, Jan Kratochvil wrote:

> So the case when debug info has been found - although in a separate debug info
> file - should be IMO the case "Yes" and not the case
> "Sorry-I've-tried-but-didn't-find-any".

Sounds right to me.

> +      /* We just check the state of any single separate debug info file, if
> +	 such one exists.  */
> +      objfile = so->objfile;
> +      if (objfile->separate_debug_objfile)
> +	objfile = objfile->separate_debug_objfile;
> +
>        if (! ui_out_is_mi_like_p (interp_ui_out (top_level_interpreter ()))
>  	  && so->symbols_loaded
> -	  && !objfile_has_partial_symbols (so->objfile)
> -	  && !objfile_has_full_symbols (so->objfile))
> +	  && !objfile_has_partial_symbols (objfile)
> +	  && !objfile_has_full_symbols (objfile))
>  	{
>  	  so_missing_debug_info = 1;
>  	  ui_out_field_string (uiout, "syms-read", "Yes (*)");
> 

separate_debug_objfile is now a list, so shouldn't you now look
over them all (main and all seperate objfiles) for symbols?

-- 
Pedro Alves