From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17148 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2008 09:15:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 17062 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2008 09:15:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:14:34 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KA000D00CCS2F00@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:16:17 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.241.172]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KA0007RJCF4EM20@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:16:17 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:15:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: too many "no debugging symbols found" messages from shared libs In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Doug Evans Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <20081003213402.7739F1C78EB@localhost> <20081030040428.GC13387@adacore.com> 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/msg00148.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:44:15 -0800 > From: Doug Evans > > 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. 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.