This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] include/gdb/section-scripts.h: New file.
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Doug Evans <dje at gmail dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:15:50 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] include/gdb/section-scripts.h: New file.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <m3fvqf3unp dot fsf at sspiff dot sspiff dot org> <87eh5vwaa3 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <CAP9bCMT2s-BMsyafMiZrNmhkAqTowmfjkHfJAQMEQpRQOhqzag at mail dot gmail dot com>
Tom> I don't see why this needs to go in include.
Doug> So you would have code that puts contents in this section using
Doug> magic numbers? Eh? This doesn't make any sense.
I didn't say that.
Doug> Why does dwarf2.def exist (for example) ?
Because it has multiple in-tree users that ought to be kept in sync,
including some in gcc.
Doug> [The dwarf format is far more complicated, obvously. But I didn't
Doug> know there was
Doug> a threshold of magic numbers was required before a header was allowed.]
I don't think there is, and I didn't say that either.
Doug> +/* Native GDB scripts are not currently supported in
Doug> .debug_gdb_scripts,
Doug> + but we reserve a value for it. */
Doug> +/*#define SECTION_SCRIPT_ID_GDB_FILE 2*/
Tom> There's no need either to reserve a value or to add commented out code.
Doug> I'm curious how I would apply this rule in general.
1. Don't check in commented-out code.
2. If a format is versioned or otherwise extensible, there is never a
need to reserve space for a future change. Instead just use the
versioning or extension mechanism when the relevant change is made.
In this case the appropriate time would be when actually changing gdb
to read gdb scripts from the section.
Tom