From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3394 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2003 20:28:22 -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 3387 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 20:28:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 20:28:22 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19457; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:15:59 -0500 Received: from catdog ([10.4.2.2]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA05343; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:28:21 -0500 Message-ID: <035901c2de9e$c7a93770$0202040a@catdog> From: "Kris Warkentin" To: "Andrew Cagney" Cc: "Daniel Jacobowitz" , References: <020c01c2d3ae$c7cb39b0$0202040a@catdog> <20030213222922.GA15783@nevyn.them.org> <000901c2d3ba$cb19aaf0$2a00a8c0@dash> <20030214000311.GA18154@nevyn.them.org> <003d01c2d3bd$b136bf30$2a00a8c0@dash> <20030214001316.GA18590@nevyn.them.org> <017c01c2d3c1$6196b210$2a00a8c0@dash> <3E4EBCF0.8070003@redhat.com> <20030217154403.GA16683@nevyn.them.org> <059b01c2d69e$0a5fe9f0$0202040a@catdog> <20030227200206.GA11306@nevyn.them.org> <02f701c2de9c$65db71e0$0202040a@catdog> <3E5E7458.3060706@redhat.com> Subject: Re: patch to add QNX NTO i386 support Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:28:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00782.txt.bz2 > > That being said, I'm of the opinion that exec-file should be unconditional. > > If symbol-file is set to one thing and exec-file to another, should gdb even > > need to check to see if exec-file exists? I haven't looked to see what info > > exec-file seems to feel it needs from the binary but I figure the run > > command will discover that the exec file isn't there and report an error > > itself. Then, in our case, the run command spawns on the remote and > > everyone is happy and we don't need a special command. > > Good point. Would a doco / code comparison be better to see if what > currently goes on makes sense? The docs only say the following: exec-file [ filename ] Specify that the program to be run (but not the symbol table) is found in filename. GDB searches the environment variable PATH if necessary to locate your program. Omitting filename means to discard information on the executable file. Right now it errors out if it doesn't find the file. Inquiry: does searching the path seem like a sensible thing to do? It seems to me that there could be unforseen consequences. Kris