Re: [PATCH] add-symbol-file-from-memory command

[Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>]

> I was more referring to the binutils mail thread starting at:
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-05/msg00658.html which had
> a rework of your function but was never finished, after several
> comments. I.e. the interface/signature for that function is still in
> flux.

Jim has suggested a trivial cosmetic change to the interface of the
function.  That can happen or not happen, and the meaningful affect on the
gdb work is epsilon (a one-minute update).  I've already said the trivial
change Jim suggested is fine with me, and Jim has already posted a patch
that I have no complaints with and the only complaints I see are Andrew's
about choice of non-normative variable names (the height of triviality).  

Andrew's assertion that this "unresolved issue" means that it's pointless
to review and discuss the rest of the code whose use of this interface will
not differ meaningfully regardless of any likely change, is simply
ludicrous.  If you and/or Andrew don't want to be of any help in hashing
out the implementation work that actually does still need to be done, fine.
Fortunately other gdb hackers are willing to review code meaningfully
rather than evade and bicker.  I am happy to work with whomever is inclined
to help.


Thanks,
Roland