Re: [RFC/WIP] unit test for separate debug info

[mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)]

Hi Elena,

mec>   gdb.base/break            original executable
mec>   gdb.base/break.stripped   stripped executable
mec>   gdb.base/break.sym        debug symbols
mec>   gdb.base/break.debuglink  output of --add-gnu-debuglink

eza> gdb.base/break-->original executable
eza> gdb.base/break.stripped-->stripped exec
eza> gdb.base/.debug/break.debug-->debuginfo only
eza> gdb.base/break-->original exec minus debug symbols plus link to the .debug file

Ah, I was mixing two things together.  I definitely prefer the doco
in the format above.  That's one thing.  I was also adding in my own
preferences for the file names.  That's a different thing.

I like gdb.base/break.sym or gdb.base/break.debug a lot more than
gdb.base/.debug/break.debug.  That keeps all the files parallel
instead of some files inside a dot directory.

mec> I would really like break.debuglink to be a separate file from the
mec> original file.  If somebody is debugging this process, it's much better
mec> to have each file be unique.

eza> At first thought I'd say no, because that's not what you'll encounter
eza> in practice. You would be testing something different. Close but
eza> different.

I see your point.  And I see that you see my point.  :)  I guess
I'm on your side now.  It's important to test what people actually do.
Although if I were building these things as end user of gcc/binutils/gdb,
I would build:

  break.full		# full debugging info
  break.stripped	# stripped executable
  break.sym		# symbols
  break.ship		# break.full - symbols + link to break.sym
  break			# copy of break.ship

Oh, yeah, I also like the MS-DOS convention of 'break.exe'
and I would like to change Unix to do that also.  So I have
weird taste.

Michael C