[RFC/WIP] unit test for separate debug info
Michael Elizabeth Chastain
Tue Nov 11 21:19:00 GMT 2003
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.
mec> I would really like break.debuglink to be a separate file from the
mec> original file. If somebody is debugging this process, it's much better
mec> to have each file be unique.
eza> At first thought I'd say no, because that's not what you'll encounter
eza> in practice. You would be testing something different. Close but
I see your point. And I see that you see my point. :) I guess
I'm on your side now. It's important to test what people actually do.
Although if I were building these things as end user of gcc/binutils/gdb,
I would build:
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
Oh, yeah, I also like the MS-DOS convention of 'break.exe'
and I would like to change Unix to do that also. So I have
More information about the Gdb-patches