Re: [RFA] Remote symbol look-up (resubmission)

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

> And here I assume you also mean "qSymbol".
> Therefore I don't understand your question.
> You seem to be suggesting that the documentation is different
> from what you think the code is doing?  But your two examples
> look to me to be identical except for what I assume are typos.


Hmm, checking the web site.  By the time it reached here the doco had 
``SymbSymbol''.  I think I'll blame my mailer :-(

Sorry, my bad.


>> My understanding of the most recent discussion was that the interaction
>> was going to be:
>> 
>> -> qSymbol
>> <- "" - unknown
>> "OK" - done
>> "qSymbol:<symbol>"
> 
> 
> I understood you to suggest that "qSymbol" was a more logical string
> than "qSharedObject", but I did not understand you to be saying that
> I should omit the object filename.  I'd like to keep it, against the
> possibility of future need.  There is a use that I could have made with
> it, I simply postponed doing so.  Others might have other uses for it, 
> especially if it included the full path.


See:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2001-05/msg00154.html


>> and then
>> 
>> -> qSymbol:<value>:<symbol>
>> <- same return values
>> 
>> because the symbol file wasn't, in its self, useful to the target.  The
>> qSymbol without arguments indicated new symbols were available.
> 
> 
> The symbol file could be useful to the target.  For instance, we could
> specify to GDB which symbol file was to be used for the lookup.  This
> would be consistent with the usage in the original thread-db spec from Sun.


You've lost me here.

Are you saying that there is going to need to be an extra parameter (the 
shared library name) added to the target->gdb symbol request on Solaris? 
  That would make it:

	qSymbol:<symbol> [ : <library> ]


>> However, if you think the target should be notified of each new symbol
>> file then I'd rather see protocol go back to ``[qQ]SymbolFile:<file>''
>> followed by ``[qQ]Symbol:<val>:<sym>'' rather than the very subtlely
>> different ``QSymbol'' vs ``qSymbol''.
> 
> 
> I'll be glad to go back to that syntax.


If it can be justified.

Remember, it is really important to get these protocol changes right. 
Unlike gdb internals, this is an external interface and once defined is 
largely set in concrete.

	Andrew