From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 605 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2004 19:28:45 -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 598 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2004 19:28:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2004 19:28:45 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AwRBZ-0000Gu-41; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:28:41 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Daniel Berlin , gdb@sources.redhat.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Branch created for inter-compilation-unit references Message-ID: <20040226192841.GA1005@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Eli Zaretskii , Daniel Berlin , gdb@sources.redhat.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com References: <1C4B9E16-67AD-11D8-9146-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <403CD4D6.3000100@gnu.org> <1037DDEA-67B5-11D8-9146-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <403CEE5C.5080100@gnu.org> <20040226150526.GB13921@nevyn.them.org> <403E47FE.70409@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <403E47FE.70409@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00400.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:24:46PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 08:30:56AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > >>>It's not more important in general, but since we are preparing to cut > >>>the 6.1 branch in a few days, DW_OP_piece might be a good thing to do > >>>now, while delaying intercu-branch merge till after the release. > >>>It's a question of timing, not of an abstract importance. > > > > > >Then both you and Andrew underestimate the intrusiveness of DW_OP_piece > >support. > > (I can't speak for Elena) I think I've got a pretty good feel for how > much work is involved in finishing (rather than prototyping) something > like this. Thats why I'm making noises about a DW_OP_piece hack for 6.1. I haven't heard any of these noises? In any case I don't think it's a particularly good idea, unless all you mean is handling the resulting error() call so that it doesn't abort symbol reading. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer