Re: Initial psymtab replacement results

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 03:39:50PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I understand the compiler problem.  If we had a program to rewrite the
> appropriate DWARF sections, would that address the problems you have?
> It seems to me that it would.

I guess so; if you allow GDB to automatically invoke said program
(there is prior art for that, too) then it's pretty much identical.  I
still think that you will have long term maintenance problems with
this approach and it will cramp future desire to extend it or change
GDB.  But that's not a provable position.

> FWIW if we were going to do our own cache, I wouldn't put it in a form
> like .debug_gnu_index or .debug_pub*.  I'd just have gdb write out a
> mappable data structure.

Or you could drag another bit of GDB into this century, and use SQLite
or some other in-process database.  Mappable data structures are
tricky; one thing I'd definitely insist on is host neutrality.  IMO
that is not optional.

> One definite positive about the branch is that these changes are a lot
> simpler now.  The psymtab stuff is mostly isolated, and writing a new
> "back end" is reasonably self-contained.

This makes me very happy.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery