From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22771 invoked by alias); 2 May 2005 21:20:56 -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 22604 invoked from network); 2 May 2005 21:20:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao10.cox.net) (68.230.240.29) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 May 2005 21:20:49 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050502212045.XLTB7787.lakermmtao10.cox.net@white> for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 17:20:45 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1DSiLL-000681-00 for ; Mon, 02 May 2005 17:20:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 21:20:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] fullname attribute for GDB/MI stack frames Message-ID: <20050502212043.GE22967@white> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050430191755.GF7009@nevyn.them.org> <20050501021945.GA19962@white> <01c54e7a$Blat.v2.4$e31afae0@zahav.net.il> <20050502005415.GA21588@white> <01c54f4d$Blat.v2.4$3ce76180@zahav.net.il> <20050502193638.GD22967@white> <01c54f50$Blat.v2.4$29b171c0@zahav.net.il> <20050502195515.GA10429@nevyn.them.org> <01c54f57$Blat.v2.4$4c163500@zahav.net.il> <20050502204859.GA6090@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050502204859.GA6090@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 04:49:00PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:40:18PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 15:55:15 -0400 > > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > > > The usual definition of absolute is that it doesn't rely on current > > > state to resolve it. > > > > DOS/Windows file names can be gray, not only white or black. Examples > > include \abc and d:foo. While not entirely free of ``current'' > > something, they are much closer to absolute file names than to > > relative file names, in the sense that you don't prepend cwd to them > > to get an absolute file name (which is what 99.99% of programs > > _really_ want to know when they are testing a file name for being > > absolute). > > That's not what we're testing for in the testsuite, though. I think > that we should reject both \abc and d:foo here. We're trying to output > a full pathname. The question is, will GDB will return \abc or d:foo from source.c:openp? I see that IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH is being used, which specifically says it allows the case \abc and d:foo. So, the next question is, does xfullpath change \abc or d:foo into a real absolute path or not? Notice the comment in utils.c:3021 #ifdef HAVE_DOS_BASED_FILE_SYSTEM /* We need to be careful when filename is of the form 'd:foo', which is equivalent of d:./foo, which is totally different from d:/foo. */ if (strlen (dir_name) == 2 && isalpha (dir_name[0]) && dir_name[1] == ':') { dir_name[2] = '.'; dir_name[3] = '\000'; } #endif That above comment broke my brain :) Thanks, Bob Rossi