From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15396 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2003 08:06:30 -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 15289 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2003 08:06:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jul 2003 08:06:28 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6I86RH01057; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:06:27 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6I86MI21798; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:06:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain.redhat.com (vpn50-1.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.1]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6I86H522281; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:06:19 -0400 To: Jim Blandy Cc: Philippe Elie , 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> <3F062F6C.7050106@wanadoo.fr> From: Nick Clifton Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Jim Blandy's message of "18 Jul 2003 01:44:27 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1001 (Gnus v5.10.1) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 Hi Jim, >> > 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 ? >> >> Well this is up to the gdb maintainers to decide, but it certainly >> seems like a good idea to avoid the code duplication. > > Sure, the plan has long been for GDB to just use the function in BFD. > The code was added to GDB before BFD; that's the only reason it's > there at all. > > Just to be sure --- under this arrangement, the old-style debug links > will continue to work, right? Yes. > One could use something like '(date; ps auxww; vmstat) | md5sum | cut > -b 1-33' to generate nice unique ID strings. yikes! Well that ought to be a reasonably randon number. The only problem would be making sure that the same number was added to both the debuginfo file and the stripped binary. I guess you would need to make sure your makefile only computed the value once, before it creates either file. Cheers Nick