From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Orjan Friberg To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC]: Solib search (Was: Re: Cross solib support; continued) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <3C03B2E8.8409512@axis.com> References: <3BEAA3A0.586B3046@axis.com> <20011108110955.A12240@nevyn.them.org> <3C03AB51.DB27B3D4@axis.com> <20011127101232.A25024@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg00495.html Message-ID: <20011127073600.vVaFDSgWud1W0V7n0G0flS0P7WpblZjMomuspq--zOg@z> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:03:45PM +0100, Orjan Friberg wrote: > > > > My thought was to make the path relative if the search for the absolute path failed, > > by simply getting rid of the leading '/'. (It won't work with DOS based file > > systems, as the dir separator could be '\\', but that would be easy to add.) > > Needless to say, this works for me, but I'm not sure it's The Right Thing to do. > > (Another approach would be to change openp, but I'm sure there's a good reason for > > its current behaviour.) > > I've got one concern with this. In native debugging, we want to open > the absolute path BEFORE searching solib-search-path - you might have > dlopened() a specific optimized version of a library whose base exists > in /usr/lib, for instance. I'm not sure I follow: wouldn't that be covered by solib_absolute_prefix being set to /usr/lib? I mean, I haven't changed the order between searching in solib_absolute_prefix and solib_search_path. Or do you mean the case where solib_absolute_prefix isn't set, and we end up searching for it using LD_LIBRARY_PATH? Hm, maybe we should only make the path relative if we are about to search for the solib in solib_search_path, leaving the other cases unaffected. -- Orjan Friberg Axis Communications AB