This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC/WIP] unit test for separate debug info
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com>
- Cc: ezannoni at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:22:53 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFC/WIP] unit test for separate debug info
- References: <20031111211924.9D4F94B361@berman.michael-chastain.com>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:19:24PM -0500, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 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.
The dot directory is special - GDB knows to search $dir/.debug/ for
these files, and that's how it will be used in the real world. I
believe it's usually:
/usr/lib/libfoo.so
/usr/lib/.debug/libfoo.so
> 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
Sure, you might build them that way. But you wouldn't ship/install
them that way.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer