Re: too many "no debugging symbols found" messages from shared libs

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:44:15 -0800
> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
> 
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> 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.

I think we should apply Doug's patch _and_ make the other change he
suggests as the "alternative" one, i.e. to print the file name as part
of the message for shared libraries.