From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28660 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2002 15:55:05 -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 28645 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2002 15:55:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 2002 15:55:04 -0000 Received: from dsl093-061-169.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.61.169] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17eHX3-0007IM-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:55:01 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17eHXK-0008PC-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:55:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:55:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Andrew Cagney , jorma.laaksonen@hut.fi, gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb/633: fully qualified pathnames in solib_map_sections() and remote debugging Message-ID: <20020812155518.GA32130@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Buettner , Andrew Cagney , jorma.laaksonen@hut.fi, gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20020806100634.11483.qmail@sources.redhat.com> <20020806132047.GA16450@nevyn.them.org> <1020809231206.ZM11775@localhost.localdomain> <20020812032527.GA3838@nevyn.them.org> <3D57C611.4010403@ges.redhat.com> <20020812143803.GA25086@nevyn.them.org> <3D57CF1A.4070405@ges.redhat.com> <1020812154849.ZM31876@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1020812154849.ZM31876@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 08:48:49AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Aug 12, 11:07am, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > This leaves only the question of "how". I don't want to change the > > >> >behavior for a native debugger using the remote protocol; just for > > >> >non-native debuggers. How should I check for this? Using configury to > > >> >do it seems contrary to the direction gdbarch is going (i.e. a both > > >> >native and cross debugger in one binary). > > > > > >> > > >> This is a target environment thing? So why not ask the target: > > >> > > >> target_getenv() > > >> -> qGetenv: > > >> <- value > > > > > > > > > No (although I will get back to qGetenv later... :). We're discussing > > > the behavior of the function solib.c:solib_open. It should vary > > > depending on whether the current target is native or not, and I don't > > > know how to figure that out correctly. > > > > There are two approaches: have solib_open() test for a local/remote > > target; or, add methods to the target vector that allow solib_open() to > > be written independant of the target. > > At the moment, I like the first approach better because it's simpler. > I'd prefer that we wait on the more complicated approach until a need > is demonstrated for the additional complexity. I agree. But as I said above, I don't want to make this decision based on local/remote. An i386-pc-linux-gnu debugger using gdbserver will default to looking in the system libraries right now; that's correct, I think. I don't feel all that certain on this point, however. > > Adding a local/remote test is going to be easier. > > Do we already have such a test? > > Kevin > -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer