On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:56:24 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 11/13/2012 10:23 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> Sometimes things aren't ideal for one group in favor of another. > > > > WHAT group is actually in favor of MiniDebugInfo? It has one single person > > as the feature owner. ABRT developers consider it useless. Who actually > > wants it? And are you sure those who think they want it realize what it > > really means? > > > > Let's take a simple example: > > $ gdb --args sleep 10 > > (gdb) r > > (press Ctrl-C) > > (gdb) bt > > #0 0xb7fdc424 in __kernel_vsyscall () > > #1 0xb7eb94f0 in __nanosleep_nocancel () from /lib/libc.so.6 > > #2 0x0804b232 in ?? () > > #3 0x08048f99 in ?? () > > #4 0xb7e166b3 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/libc.so.6 > > #5 0x08049085 in ?? () > > > > What MiniDebugInfo will give you (not tested): > > #0 0xb7fdc424 in __kernel_vsyscall () > > #1 0xb7eb94f0 in __nanosleep_nocancel () from /lib/libc.so.6 > > #2 0x0804b232 in xnanosleep () from /usr/bin/sleep > > #3 0x08048f99 in main () from /usr/bin/sleep > > #4 0xb7e166b3 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/libc.so.6 > > #5 0x08049085 in ?? () > > > > With coreutils-debuginfo, glibc-debuginfo and glibc-debuginfo-common > > installed: > > #0 0xb7fdc424 in __kernel_vsyscall () > > #1 0xb7eb94f0 in __nanosleep_nocancel () > > at ../sysdeps/unix/syscall-template.S:82 > > #2 0x0804b232 in xnanosleep (seconds=10) at xnanosleep.c:111 > > #3 0x08048f99 in main (argc=2, argv=0xbfffef24) at sleep.c:147 > > > > Spot the difference… > > I just did. You seem to have proved the point of mini-debuginfo. You seem to have proved different people consider it useless vs. useful. Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
