From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31292 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2003 12:28:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29948 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 12:28:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 12:28:12 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08742; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:21:16 -0400 Received: from catdog ([10.4.2.2]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA27947; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:28:11 -0400 Message-ID: <007a01c33727$77aa0830$0202040a@catdog> From: "Kris Warkentin" To: "Kevin Buettner" Cc: "Daniel Jacobowitz" , "Gdb@Sources.Redhat.Com" , "Michael Snyder" References: <09e801c33504$bd88b420$0202040a@catdog> <1030617200144.ZM31327@localhost.localdomain> <0ab001c3350d$359af2e0$0202040a@catdog> <1030617202406.ZM31423@localhost.localdomain> <3EEFAEDB.4090509@redhat.com> <005101c3353c$80077c70$2a00a8c0@dash> <1030618051511.ZM11645@localhost.localdomain> <3EF0B23E.8040406@redhat.com> <20030618191600.GB9449@nevyn.them.org> <3EF0C77A.5000007@redhat.com> <20030618202726.GA11078@nevyn.them.org> <3EF0D0AD.6000204@redhat.com> <046901c3365d$c68e2a50$0202040a@catdog> <1030619231615.ZM4725@localhost.localdomain> <1030619234220.ZM4802@localhost.localdomain> Subject: Re: Why does solib_open do what it does? Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:28:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00410.txt.bz2 Doh....I read the first email, made the changes and submitted the patch before I saw this one. Oh well, it won't hurt to have that in there for now until we decide whether or not to prepend solib-absolute-prefix to paths. I'm personnally of the opinion that there is MORE than enough search capability there now. If someone can't find a lib between what the loader fills in, solib-search-path, solib-absolute-prefix AND target defined searches.... I mean, how much hand-holding do we want to do? The more you broaden your seach, the more likely you are to get something you don't want. cheers, Kris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Buettner" To: "Kris Warkentin" Cc: "Daniel Jacobowitz" ; "Gdb@Sources.Redhat.Com" ; "Michael Snyder" Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:42 PM Subject: Re: Why does solib_open do what it does? > On Jun 19, 4:16pm, Kevin Buettner wrote: > > > It's still not clear to me if the PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH searches > > are needed for natives. Either they're not needed or nobody's noticed > > that some previously available functionality (prior to Nov 21, 2000) > > is now missing. I do know, however, that we definitely don't want to > > do these searches for (most) remote targets. In light of Michael's > > remarks, I'm now inclined to be more cautious about removing these > > searches than I was originally. > > > > Further, if you're debugging a remote target, you'd better have > > solib-absolute-prefix set, or things will almost certainly go wrong. > > To the best of my knowledge, when you're debugging a native target, > > you never set solib-absolute-prefix, so the fact that this is set or > > not gives us a cheap, but effective way to determine whether the > > intent is to run on a native target or not. > > > > Actually, it's better than that. Something that I occassionally do is > > to run against a "native" rda or gdb server where I don't set > > solib-absolute-prefix. Doing things in this fashion will make search > > algorithm for this kind of "remote" (which is really a native > > disguised as a remote) target identical to running a native and that > > is precisely what's desired. > > I've just thought of another way to look at this which has nothing to > do with inferences about which settings imply remote targets vs. > which imply native targets. > > When you set solib-absolute-prefix, you want all absolute paths (aside > from those constructed from solib-search-path) to be searched for > using the given prefix. Our present search code using PATH and > LD_LIBRARY_PATH does not honor solib-absolute-prefix for absolute > paths, so it makes (some) sense to disable these searches when > solib-absolute-prefix is set. > > It would probably make more sense to force the PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH > searches to honor solib-absolute-prefix, but before we go down that > road, I'd like to reach some definite conclusion regarding whether > these searches are really necessary. > > Kevin >