[15946] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: design choices for a loadable module interface
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey Hutzelman)
Tue Jun 29 23:50:18 2010
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:50:11 -0400
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
To: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com>, ghudson@mit.edu
Message-ID: <541735687952A0BABBC402F0@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20100629211511.GY11785@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: krbdev@mit.edu, jhutz@cmu.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
--On Tuesday, June 29, 2010 04:15:11 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
<Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com> wrote:
> If you're using dynamic linking at all then there's no difference in how
> hard it is to set such breakpoints in either scheme. If you don't agree
> then please explain in detail.
In gdb I can set a breakpoint on a symbol in a dynamic object that has not
yet been loaded, such as a plugin. The debugger will defer the symbol
lookup until an object is loaded containing that symbol, which is extremely
convenient.
It is easy to break on foo_do_something() even though the plugin foo has
not been loaded. It's rather harder to break on the plugin foo's
do_something() if every plugin has a function by that name.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
