From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26902 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2003 13:42:33 -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 26885 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2003 13:42:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jul 2003 13:42:33 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7CE2B7F; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F17F93A.4030805@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:42:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philippe Elie Cc: Nick Clifton , graydon@redhat.com, oprofile-list@sourceforge.net, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: separated debuginfo patch References: <87wuf3s4q3.fsf@dub.venge.net> <3F02B1A5.5000102@wanadoo.fr> <87adbwpkhj.fsf@dub.venge.net> <3F03EB19.4090801@wanadoo.fr> <3F062EDF.4060801@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00239.txt.bz2 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. Nick wrote: > Overall though I like the patch and the solution. If we can get the > GDB maintainers to agree (or at least not object to) adding the extra > field at the end of the .gnu-debuglink section then I would be happy > to review a final version of the patch. (Note - you will need a FSF > copyright assignment as well...) Well, the so called GNU debuglink mechanism was never actually discussed on a GNU list, re-visiting it now sounds like a good idea. Looks to me like you've come up with something actually useful. Perhaps someone should post a revised description and have it added to the BFD doco. Here's the current description from GDB: http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb_16.html#SEC134 Andrew