From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2783 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2009 18:58:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 2772 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Oct 2009 18:58:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sif.is.scarlet.be (HELO sif.is.scarlet.be) (193.74.71.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:57:52 +0000 Received: from [172.17.1.10] (ip-81-11-247-37.dsl.scarlet.be [81.11.247.37]) by sif.is.scarlet.be (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n99Iv3Yl021331; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 20:57:03 +0200 Subject: Re: shared lib dos filename style - one more question From: Danny Backx Reply-To: danny.backx@scarlet.be To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches In-Reply-To: <20091009173650.GB5272@adacore.com> References: <1253973110.10921.76.camel@pavilion> <1254946075.10921.178.camel@pavilion> <20091007201145.GA21557@caradoc.them.org> <1255017831.10921.197.camel@pavilion> <20091009173650.GB5272@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:58:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1255114781.10921.217.camel@pavilion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-scarlet.be-Metrics: sif 20001; Body=4 Fuz1=4 Fuz2=4 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00195.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 10:36 -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > I'm sure that any effects of discouragement at my end are not the > > intention of this message :-) > > This just shows how important it is to agree on user-level design > before digging into the implementation - when you can of course. > Not saying that you didn't! > > I actually missed that discussion. Would you mind maybe explain again > what it is that you're trying to achieve and what has been said on > the subject? I promise I will read through it and try to give you my > answers to your questions. Sure. Note that I'm not discouraged yet, but I would like people to step into the discussion *now*, not after I'm pointed in another direction. What am I trying to accomplish ? Consider http://sf.net/projects/cegcc - cross-develop from your favourite host to target the Windows CE family (Windows Mobile, PocketPC, Windows Embedded CE, ..). Gdb talks to the remote process to debug via gdbserver. This all works very well until you want to interact with DLLs. In some circumstances (e.g. with Windows Embedded CE on x86), gdb will receive DLL information with full paths to the DLLS. Those paths are in windows style, while the gdb (if on e.g. Linux) only knows about Unix style paths. From that point on, everything related to shared libraries fails : e.g. querying at which addresses a DLL is loaded. My goal is to fix that. An example session is in http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00223.html You can follow that thread to the rest of the discussion. At one point I was talking to the BFD maintainers, that was due to my own misunderstanding. So there's stuff on the BFD list, but probably not important. Another interaction is on the gcc mailing list, due to impact on libiberty. I have the feeling that my current code can be accepted there if the solution it is created for is considered (by the gdb crowd) to be the right one. Please don't misunderstand me : I'm not interested in a particular solution. The simple one - that was suggested by Daniel this week - is perfectly acceptable to me; I'll end up considering the coding I did for it as work necessary for impact analysis. No harm done. Thanks for looking into this. Danny -- Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info