Date:	Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:20:29 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
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:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1021017081641.3848H-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

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.

- Raw text -