From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 805 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2007 06:20:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 795 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Feb 2007 06:20:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:20:00 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD05948CDC9; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 01:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 26147-01-6; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 01:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4CBD48CC35; Fri, 2 Feb 2007 01:19:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <45C2D80E.2050403@adacore.com> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:20:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker , Wiljan Derks , gdb@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: How to tell gdb about dlls using remote protocol References: <003f01c7457c$0f2d8090$9600000a@kamer> <20070131223113.GA15122@nevyn.them.org> <20070201175311.GG17864@adacore.com> <20070201225437.GA13740@nevyn.them.org> <20070201230301.GM17864@adacore.com> <20070201235944.GA16114@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20070201235944.GA16114@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Except it's pretty standard to compile without a frame pointer on > Windows, from what I've encountered - and more importantly, all of the > Microsoft DLLs seem to do so. I still think we need to come up with > some way to take advantage of the MS symbol info, though it's not a > small project (so I haven't really tried to do it). True, but it is relatively unlikely to be interesting to debug through Microsoft DLL's, much more likely and useful to debug through user written DLL's, and people can learn that if they want to debug such DLL's they should not suppress the frame pointer. I agree it would be nice to take advantage of the MS symbol info if this is possible (technically and legally), but as you say it is a big project, and we should not let best be the enemy of better.