Re: [RFC/WIP] unit test for separate debug info

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:19:24PM -0500, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Hi Elena,
> 
> mec>   gdb.base/break            original executable
> mec>   gdb.base/break.stripped   stripped executable
> mec>   gdb.base/break.sym        debug symbols
> mec>   gdb.base/break.debuglink  output of --add-gnu-debuglink
> 
> eza> gdb.base/break-->original executable
> eza> gdb.base/break.stripped-->stripped exec
> eza> gdb.base/.debug/break.debug-->debuginfo only
> eza> gdb.base/break-->original exec minus debug symbols plus link to the .debug file
> 
> Ah, I was mixing two things together.  I definitely prefer the doco
> in the format above.  That's one thing.  I was also adding in my own
> preferences for the file names.  That's a different thing.
> 
> I like gdb.base/break.sym or gdb.base/break.debug a lot more than
> gdb.base/.debug/break.debug.  That keeps all the files parallel
> instead of some files inside a dot directory.

The dot directory is special - GDB knows to search $dir/.debug/ for
these files, and that's how it will be used in the real world.  I
believe it's usually:
  /usr/lib/libfoo.so
  /usr/lib/.debug/libfoo.so

>   break.full		# full debugging info
>   break.stripped	# stripped executable
>   break.sym		# symbols
>   break.ship		# break.full - symbols + link to break.sym
>   break			# copy of break.ship

Sure, you might build them that way.  But you wouldn't ship/install
them that way.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer