This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] gdbserver build-id attribute generator
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Aleksandar Ristovski <ARistovski at qnx dot com>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 14:24:14 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] gdbserver build-id attribute generator
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140319223004 dot 14668 dot 20989 dot stgit at host1 dot jankratochvil dot net> <20140319223115 dot 14668 dot 73456 dot stgit at host1 dot jankratochvil dot net> <87ppj8tswu dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com>
On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:40:33 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
> Jan> -<!ATTLIST library-list-svr4 version CDATA #FIXED "1.0">
> Jan> -<!ATTLIST library-list-svr4 main-lm CDATA #IMPLIED>
> Jan> +<!ATTLIST library-list-svr4 version CDATA #FIXED "1.0">
> Jan> +<!ATTLIST library-list-svr4 main-lm CDATA #IMPLIED>
>
> I am concerned about versioning of the XML.
> Is it correct to keep the same version number?
> If so -- why?
I wrote a never replied essay + [patch] fix about why the current handling
of 'version' is wrong:
[patch] gdbserver <library-list> and its #FIXED version="1.0"
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-11/msg00099.html
> Perhaps we consider it compatible to add attributes.
Unrelated to the bug referenced above - I think so.
> I really don't know; nor did I find anything in the documentation.
> So at the very least this needs an update to the manual to warn
> future users.
I do not understand this. The only changed (newly added) attribute is
build-id #IMPLIED - therefore optional - therefore backward/forward
compatible. Who needs to be warned about it?
Regards,
Jan