From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13772 invoked by alias); 4 May 2005 04:18:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13711 invoked from network); 4 May 2005 04:18:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 May 2005 04:18:44 -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 EHD42291 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 4 May 2005 07:18:38 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 04:18:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <01c55060$Blat.v2.4$279229a0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: <20050503213943.GG25356@white> (message from Bob Rossi on Tue, 3 May 2005 17:39:43 -0400) Subject: Re: [RFC] fullname attribute for GDB/MI stack frames Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20050502193638.GD22967@white> <01c54f50$Blat.v2.4$29b171c0@zahav.net.il> <20050502195515.GA10429@nevyn.them.org> <01c54f57$Blat.v2.4$4c163500@zahav.net.il> <20050502204859.GA6090@nevyn.them.org> <01c54f91$Blat.v2.4$f6e0b160@zahav.net.il> <20050503034604.GA437@nevyn.them.org> <01c55017$Blat.v2.4$3cb51f20@zahav.net.il> <20050503195650.GD25356@white> <01c55025$Blat.v2.4$00e755e0@zahav.net.il> <20050503213943.GG25356@white> X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:39:43 -0400 > From: Bob Rossi > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > OK, I'm going to add the examples d:foo and \abc to the doco. Please don't bother, cause I'm going to reject any such text. You are going to confuse FE developers with no real reason. > This could potentially help FE developers understand these odd > case's when they appear. I already explained more than once that they don't need to bother. Please re-read my messages, and if something is unclear, please ask specific questions (but not the same ones you already asked). > Also, it's important to say that the fullname is not necessarily > absolute, but simply the most precise file name that GDB has. There's no need to say things like that because FE developers won't know what to do about it. > What I was trying to say was, if d:foo and d:./foo will currently return in > the fullpath field, then fullname does not always return absolute paths. It returns the best approximation it can come up with. > I should document -file-list-exec-source-file to state this. Also, the > regex should match the existing functionality (which does not force > absolute paths). The regexp I suggested does just that. So why are we still arguing?