From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13824 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2003 14:03:44 -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 13798 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2003 14:03:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jul 2003 14:03:43 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19dVp6-00047M-00; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:03:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:03:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Philippe Elie , Nick Clifton , graydon@redhat.com, oprofile-list@sourceforge.net, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: separated debuginfo patch Message-ID: <20030718140300.GA15751@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Philippe Elie , Nick Clifton , graydon@redhat.com, oprofile-list@sourceforge.net, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <87wuf3s4q3.fsf@dub.venge.net> <3F02B1A5.5000102@wanadoo.fr> <87adbwpkhj.fsf@dub.venge.net> <3F03EB19.4090801@wanadoo.fr> <3F062EDF.4060801@wanadoo.fr> <3F17F93A.4030805@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F17F93A.4030805@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00240.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 09:42:18AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Philippe, > > > >[trying to avoid crc'ing the separate debug file] > > > >I need to know how GDB guys want I deal with the gdb part, for now > >gdb.diff just remove (#if 0) all duplicated code from bfd and use > >bfd_follow_gnu_debuglink() to retrieve the debug info file. Is it > >ok to remove this code or must I update the duplicated code according > >to the change in bfd ? > > I just wonder if it should eventually be made more transparent? > bfd_openr (file, FOLLOW_DEBUG_LINK). > Doing things like: > objdump --follow-debug-link > would then become possible. Regardless, it makes sense to put the > algorighm in BFD. It should. I talked Graydon into trying this at the time he submitted the BFD part - it turned out to be a world of trouble given BFDs current data structure, and we bailed out. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer