From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 90896386546B; Wed, 22 May 2024 14:04:03 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 90896386546B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1716386643; bh=lGkQYk5jXTWjuA2x7X8PYc4peb9c+YM7ETQ7N3BzwV8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=L6hPjltM9o3UQtBFxNwbDFtw8mNdTCZyGnmOUs/Yzir90i6wLjCCCvGebaEUHD98y oPTiGbwgEoq14WleJscZQmLAk0GYQ0/dHYtYVga3EBukj9qCM/2gBNBDrJ7uoD7Fu+ grR5fmXDUdKkOzKvfRzOKnqOZbJ57g1QKIf4LwMM= From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug symtab/30871] [gdb/symtab] Means to control finding debuginfo (without/with sysroot prefix) Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 14:04:03 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: symtab X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30871 --- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Andrew Burgess from comment #2) > Hi Tom, >=20 > I was taking a look at this, and I wasn't clear on why we need a new > maintenance command? >=20 > Your point seems solid: there are no tests for finding debug information > using the sysroot, but isn't the fix to that just to add such a test? How > does the new maintenance command help us? >=20 > Anyway, I posted this: >=20 > https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/cover.1716214388.git. > aburgess@redhat.com >=20 > As an attempt to address this patch. I can look at extending it if some > case isn't being covered sufficiently. Hi Andrew, I think you're right, a new (maintenance) command isn't necessary to test t= he behaviour. I think I conflated two ideas in this PR: - IWBN to have a command to show and control how debuginfo is found, determining allowed methods (build-id/debug-link/both, with/without sysroot/both) and order in which they're tried. - a test-case for finding debuginfo via the sysroot is missing When filing the PR I thought of the test-case in terms of using the command= .=20 But it's also possible to write a test-case to check one scenario by making sure the other scenarios will fail, which I suppose is what you have done in the patch series. Anyway, I'll take a look at the series, thanks for taking care of the missi= ng test-case. You mention extending the test-case, and one thing I can think of that is nice-to-have, is using symlinks, in other words exercising PR30866 and addi= ng a KFAIL for that. As for the command, AFAIC it's a nice-to-have which could be useful. For instance, my guess is that users who set up debug info on the sysroot might want to have a means to skip trying to look up debug packages without the sysroot prefix. But if there's no demand for it, I'm more than happy to dr= op it. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=