From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13051 invoked by alias); 3 May 2005 20:05:50 -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 12325 invoked from network); 3 May 2005 20:05:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao05.cox.net) (68.230.240.34) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 May 2005 20:05:21 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050503200521.QBVR13442.lakermmtao05.cox.net@white>; Tue, 3 May 2005 16:05:21 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1DT3dv-0006hu-00; Tue, 03 May 2005 16:05:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 20:05:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] fullname attribute for GDB/MI stack frames Message-ID: <20050503200519.GE25356@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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$4c163500@zahav.net.il> <20050502204859.GA6090@nevyn.them.org> <01c54f91$Blat.v2.4$f6e0b160@zahav.net.il> <20050503034604.GA437@nevyn.them.org> <01c55017$Blat.v2.4$3cb51f20@zahav.net.il> <20050503194856.GA4477@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050503194856.GA4477@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 03:48:56PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 10:34:15PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 23:46:05 -0400 > > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > > > > > That's not what we're testing for in the testsuite, though. > > > > > > > > What _are_ we trying to test? > > > > > > GDB is outputting an absolute path, which will be used by either the > > > user or by a front end. In either case, it should locate the file > > > entirely unambiguously. > > > > If that is what we want to test, then the test is IMHO inappropriate: > > we shouldn't try to identify an absolute file name, we should see if > > the name it produces corresponds to a real file. I.e., try to stat > > the file, or maybe cmp it against the source whose path we know, or > > something like that. > > Round and round we go... I believe I just argued the same point you're > making here a little earlier, but gave in to Bob's wishes. > > These tests are not for the fullname feature. They merely include a > fullname in their output. I'm all for putting fullname=".*basics.c" in > them and leaving it at that. But if we're going to be more precise, > then we should try to be completely precise; the regexp can be easily > centralized. I would be more than willing to make the initial regex variable be '/.*' or even '.*' to get this patch resolved. Later, the burden will be on me to update the regex to an appropriate value. Thanks, Bob Rossi