Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:20:29 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: symify problem In-Reply-To: <200210161723.g9GHNLS04335@envy.delorie.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, DJ Delorie wrote: > > and get rid of the old symify? > > Maybe, maybe not. It's handy to have a smaller version that at least > handles functions, and perhaps someone will add support for the newer > debug formats some day. As someone who wrote bfdsymify, I think it's too early to get rid of symify. We need to get a better confidence in bfdsymify first. It was almost unused until now, since symify did its job. Now that the default format changed to DWARF2, it will begin to be used, so any bugs that are lurking will surface. Note that some programs (Emacs is one notable example) will probably never switch to DWARF2 (in the case of Emacs that's because no one had time or motivation to rewrite the unexec code used by the DJGPP port to support DWARF2, or adapt unexelf.c to DJGPP). > Alternately, symify could look to see if bfdsymify is in your path, > and exec it if found. A good idea, IMHO.