This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: A revised patch for dlclose
H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 02:19:56AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:03:21 -0800
> > From: "H . J . Lu" <email@example.com>
> > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > > HJ, please stop wasting your time pushing this patch. The patch has
> > > several bad points, that you cannot fix without considerable changes
> > > to the way solib.c handles and caches the link map.
> > I just pointed out gdb needed to check the unloaded DSOs when handling
> > the BPSTAT_WHAT_CHECK_SHLIBS and BPSTAT_WHAT_CHECK_SHLIBS_RESUME_FROM_HOOK
> > events. It is a serious bug to me and it should be fixed in 5.0. I
> > don't care how it is fixed.
> > But I, and I hope most of the other GDB maintainers, do care how it is
> > fixed!
> That is fine with me as long as it is fixed in 5.0. There is no excuse
> not to get gdb to work with dlclose. "I don't like the way it fixes the
> bug" doesn't count unless you can provide a different approach. I
> think it is unreasonable to have a perfect fix for every bug. We can
> work a better one after 5.0 if we don't have the time now.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I'm not addressing your
patch in particular, but there are many "fixes" that are
worse than no fix at all. In fact, GDB is full of them,
to our (the maintainers) daily regret. There is never time
to fix it right the second time.