From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-14843-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 11569 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2003 06:42:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 11557 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2003 06:42:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jul 2003 06:42:11 -0000
Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433)
	id B199C204F5; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:44:27 -0500 (EST)
To: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
Cc: Philippe Elie <phil.el@wanadoo.fr>, graydon@redhat.com,
	oprofile-list@sourceforge.net, binutils@sources.redhat.com,
	gdb@sources.redhat.com
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>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:42:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <m3brw1vzby.fsf@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <vt265m0ibas.fsf@zenia.home>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00234.txt.bz2


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.