From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4081 invoked by alias); 5 May 2005 04:05:06 -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 3946 invoked from network); 5 May 2005 04:05:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 May 2005 04:05:00 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-83-130-245-224.inter.net.il [83.130.245.224]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id EHJ48910 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 5 May 2005 07:04:58 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 04:05:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <01c55127$Blat.v2.4$6bd32020@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: <20050504233703.GL30075@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> (message from Christopher Faylor on Wed, 4 May 2005 19:37:03 -0400) Subject: Re: [RFC] fullname attribute for GDB/MI stack frames Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20050502204859.GA6090@nevyn.them.org> <01c54f91$Blat.v2.4$f6e0b160@zahav.net.il> <20050503034604.GA437@nevyn.them.org> <01c55017$Blat.v2.4$3cb51f20@zahav.net.il> <20050503194856.GA4477@nevyn.them.org> <01c55021$Blat.v2.4$520aa7a0@zahav.net.il> <20050504133437.GA10578@nevyn.them.org> <20050504183127.GA19094@nevyn.them.org> <01c550eb$Blat.v2.4$24b1dce0@zahav.net.il> <20050504233703.GL30075@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00155.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 19:37:03 -0400 > From: Christopher Faylor > > >It doesn't. That's why I only care for the functions involved in > >this, not about the test case itself. > > But, conceivably a MinGW port could support expect. I'd like to see a > native Windows port provide fully qualified paths, even if that isn't a > requirement for DJGPP. Me too. That is why I suggested a regex for this test case in the first place. But if the result is that changes will be made that I don't approve of and cannot afford to continue arguing about, then all I _reallY_ care about is that the DJGPP port will continue doing what it does now.