From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12658 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2002 08:11:48 -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 12631 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2002 08:11:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dublin.ACT-Europe.FR) (212.157.227.154) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2002 08:11:46 -0000 Received: from berlin.ACT-Europe.FR (berlin.int.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.169]) by dublin.ACT-Europe.FR (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEE322A005; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:11:45 +0100 (MET) Received: by berlin.ACT-Europe.FR (Postfix, from userid 507) id 19126965; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:11:45 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:11:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] gdb_realpath causes problems with GVD Message-ID: <20020321091144.A30346@act-europe.fr> References: <20020319171236.D6465@act-europe.fr> <87adt2ri93.fsf@creche.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <87adt2ri93.fsf@creche.redhat.com>; from tromey@redhat.com on Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 03:23:19PM -0700 X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00406.txt.bz2 > gdb tells GVD that the file is "/bonn.a/brobecke/symlinks/toto.C". > Why does GVD then use just the base name? That's a very good point, and I'll followup with the GVD developers. There is something in the break command that I haven't understood, because: (gdb) b toto.C:5 No source file named toto.C. (gdb) b /bonn.a/brobecke/toplevel/symlinks/toto.C:4 Note: breakpoint 1 also set at pc 0x8048583. Breakpoint 2 at 0x8048583: file /bonn.a/brobecke/toplevel_link/symlinks/toto.c, line 4. This seems odd to me that GDB refuses a breakpoint on toto.C, but accepts a breakpoint on /bonn.a/.../toto.C? I also noticed an inconsistency in the filename used in the "Breakpoint 2 at ..." line, should this be also normalized? > I suspect this won't be correct in all cases, but I don't have a ready > counterexample. It would be useful if you could find such a counter example, because it would help me for future work in GDB to undertand if there was something I missed. Supposing that this problem can be corrected entirely in GVD, should I withdraw my change request? I would still prefer GDB to display toto.c rather than toto.C as the basename part, but I don't have a strong opinion so the advice of all GDB developers would be welcome. -- Joel