From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Berlin <dan@www.cgsoftware.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Cc: Jacques-Olivier Goussard <jgoussard@nuance.com>, <gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com>
Subject: RE: Helping GDB to find symbols
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 09:54:00 -0000
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105011251430.22243-100000@www.cgsoftware.com>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010501114517.29799A-100000@is>
X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00013.html

On Tue, 1 May 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Jacques-Olivier Goussard wrote:
>
> > > Doesn't it work to say "gdb yourprog core", where `yourprog' is the
> > > unstripped binary and `core' is the core file you get from your
> > > customers?
> > No. I guess it gets mixed up in the addresses and offsets. The stacktrace
> > for example is quite different when I switched to the non-debug to
> > debug binaries (exec and dynamic libraries).
>
> Hmm?  I don't understand how is this possible: all the addresses in a
> stripped program should be exactly like in an unstripped one.
> Otherwise, you won't be able to debug the core dump which originated
> from an unstripped program.

Right. I'm with you here. This makes no sense.
>
> Am I missing something?
No,. You are exactly right. He should be able to just use the debug
version with the cor efile.


Unless, of course, his non-debug versions are compiled with different
optimization flags, than his debug versions.
That would do it, I think.
>
> What is your object file format and debug info format, btw?
>