This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Stabs or Dwarf Was: [PATCH]: testsuite/gdb.base/constvars.exp
- To: Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Stabs or Dwarf Was: [PATCH]: testsuite/gdb.base/constvars.exp
- From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:29:33 -0400
- Cc: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser at cygnus dot com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, vinschen at redhat dot com
- References: <20010925192434.M29024@cygbert.vinschen.de><3BB0C224.AB324D56@cygnus.com><3BB0CB81.8385E123@redhat.com><3BB0F122.3E45B3ED@cygnus.com><3BB236BB.F50E045E@cygnus.com><3BB24ABF.1072EE55@apple.com><3BB24F75.A33E707E@redhat.com>
Fernando Nasser writes:
> Hi Stan,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Stan Shebs wrote:
> >
> > I can't think of a completely reliable test on binary files. For
> > instance, in original a.out, stabs are plain symbols, not in a
> > distinctly-named section. You also have the problem of an executable
> > maybe having libraries compiled with stabs, and main prog with dwarf,
> > and objdump can't distinguish.
> >
>
> True.
>
> I was thinking just in terms of the testsuite. Most test programs are
> a single file. Could we test just the object file for that one?
I have seen cases in which we have both a .mdebug and a .stabs (or was
that dwarf2) sections (for the same program segment), and even gdb
itself gets confused as to which one is the reliable debug
info. Frankly I wouldn't be able to say exactly under which
circumstances you get this, but I have seen it.
I think this is basically what Stan is saying, the heuristic is
unreliable.
Elena
>
> Another idea: if we can't say t is stabs but we can say it is dwarf,
> we could implement a gdb_is_dwarf instead. Would that help?
>
> Regards,
> Fernando
>
>
> --
> Fernando Nasser
> Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
> 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
> Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9