Re: separated debuginfo patch

[Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>]

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.