From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-39177-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 30383 invoked by alias); 3 May 2005 03:42:41 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 30360 invoked from network); 3 May 2005 03:42:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 May 2005 03:42:34 -0000
Received: from zaretski (IGLD-80-230-71-109.inter.net.il [80.230.71.109])
	by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR)
	with ESMTP id EGY29777 (AUTH halo1);
	Tue, 3 May 2005 06:42:31 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 03:42:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Message-ID: <01c54f91$Blat.v2.4$f6e0b160@zahav.net.il>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In-reply-to: <20050502204859.GA6090@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel
	Jacobowitz on Mon, 2 May 2005 16:49:00 -0400)
Subject: Re: [RFC] fullname attribute for GDB/MI stack frames
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <ECCC6E9907B4CD4A83260A191A91F20E22C6D2@wampa.office.slickedit.com> <20050430191755.GF7009@nevyn.them.org> <20050501021945.GA19962@white> <01c54e7a$Blat.v2.4$e31afae0@zahav.net.il> <20050502005415.GA21588@white> <01c54f4d$Blat.v2.4$3ce76180@zahav.net.il> <20050502193638.GD22967@white> <01c54f50$Blat.v2.4$29b171c0@zahav.net.il> <20050502195515.GA10429@nevyn.them.org> <01c54f57$Blat.v2.4$4c163500@zahav.net.il> <20050502204859.GA6090@nevyn.them.org>
X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 16:49:00 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> > DOS/Windows file names can be gray, not only white or black.  Examples
> > include \abc and d:foo.  While not entirely free of ``current''
> > something, they are much closer to absolute file names than to
> > relative file names, in the sense that you don't prepend cwd to them
> > to get an absolute file name (which is what 99.99% of programs
> > _really_ want to know when they are testing a file name for being
> > absolute).
> 
> That's not what we're testing for in the testsuite, though.

What _are_ we trying to test?

> I think that we should reject both \abc and d:foo here.

I don't think so.