From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Elena Zannoni To: Fernando Nasser Cc: Stan Shebs , Fernando Nasser , Michael Snyder , gdb@sources.redhat.com, vinschen@redhat.com Subject: Re: Stabs or Dwarf Was: [PATCH]: testsuite/gdb.base/constvars.exp Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:22:00 -0000 Message-id: <15282.22221.826751.449834@krustylu.cygnus.com> References: <20010925192434.M29024@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3BB0C224.AB324D56@cygnus.com> <3BB0CB81.8385E123@redhat.com> <3BB0F122.3E45B3ED@cygnus.com> <3BB236BB.F50E045E@cygnus.com> <3BB24ABF.1072EE55@apple.com> <3BB24F75.A33E707E@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00213.html Fernando Nasser writes: > Hi Stan, > > Thanks for your comments. > > Stan Shebs wrote: > > > > I can't think of a completely reliable test on binary files. For > > instance, in original a.out, stabs are plain symbols, not in a > > distinctly-named section. You also have the problem of an executable > > maybe having libraries compiled with stabs, and main prog with dwarf, > > and objdump can't distinguish. > > > > True. > > I was thinking just in terms of the testsuite. Most test programs are > a single file. Could we test just the object file for that one? I have seen cases in which we have both a .mdebug and a .stabs (or was that dwarf2) sections (for the same program segment), and even gdb itself gets confused as to which one is the reliable debug info. Frankly I wouldn't be able to say exactly under which circumstances you get this, but I have seen it. I think this is basically what Stan is saying, the heuristic is unreliable. Elena > > Another idea: if we can't say t is stabs but we can say it is dwarf, > we could implement a gdb_is_dwarf instead. Would that help? > > Regards, > Fernando > > > -- > Fernando Nasser > Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com > 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 > Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9