This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: separated debuginfo patch


Philippe,

[trying to avoid crc'ing the separate debug file]


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 ?

I just wonder if it should eventually be made more transparent?
bfd_openr (file, FOLLOW_DEBUG_LINK).
Doing things like:
objdump --follow-debug-link
would then become possible. Regardless, it makes sense to put the algorighm in BFD.


Nick wrote:
Overall though I like the patch and the solution.  If we can get the
GDB maintainers to agree (or at least not object to) adding the extra
field at the end of the .gnu-debuglink section then I would be happy
to review a final version of the patch.  (Note - you will need a FSF
copyright assignment as well...)

Well, the so called GNU debuglink mechanism was never actually discussed on a GNU list, re-visiting it now sounds like a good idea. Looks to me like you've come up with something actually useful.


Perhaps someone should post a revised description and have it added to the BFD doco. Here's the current description from GDB:
http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb_16.html#SEC134


Andrew



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]