This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: separated debuginfo patch
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Philippe Elie <phil dot el at wanadoo dot fr>, graydon at redhat dot com,oprofile-list at sourceforge dot net, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com,gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 18 Jul 2003 01:44:27 -0500
- Subject: Re: separated debuginfo patch
- References: <87wuf3s4q3.fsf@dub.venge.net> <3F02B1A5.5000102@wanadoo.fr><87adbwpkhj.fsf@dub.venge.net> <3F03EB19.4090801@wanadoo.fr><m3brwasjkh.fsf@redhat.com> <3F062EDF.4060801@wanadoo.fr><3F062F6C.7050106@wanadoo.fr> <m3brw1vzby.fsf@redhat.com>
Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> Sorry for the long delay in replying - I have been very busy over
> the last few weeks.
>
>
> > 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?
One could use something like '(date; ps auxww; vmstat) | md5sum | cut
-b 1-33' to generate nice unique ID strings.