From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21449 invoked by alias); 4 May 2005 18:06:46 -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 21294 invoked from network); 4 May 2005 18:06:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao09.cox.net) (68.230.240.30) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 May 2005 18:06:38 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao09.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050504180632.OWLO6804.lakermmtao09.cox.net@white>; Wed, 4 May 2005 14:06:32 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1DTOGW-0007T7-00; Wed, 04 May 2005 14:06:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 18:06:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] fullname attribute for GDB/MI stack frames Message-ID: <20050504180632.GA28488@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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$3cb51f20@zahav.net.il> <20050503194856.GA4477@nevyn.them.org> <01c55021$Blat.v2.4$520aa7a0@zahav.net.il> <20050504133437.GA10578@nevyn.them.org> <20050504135122.GA27415@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00127.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:51:21PM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:51:22 -0400 > > From: Bob Rossi > > > > > > No, I don't think it can. The difference between an absolute path and > > > a partially relative path is that an absolute path has no implicit > > > information. If GDB reports that one file includes a header c:\abc and > > > another includes \abc, the front end has to guess whether GDB considers > > > those the same file or not. > > > > This is very true. This will break CGDB for instance. It use's the > > fullname as a unique key to a file. If GDB says that c:\abc has 2 > > breakpoints and \abc has 1, CGDB will have 2 source files the user can > > choose and each will contain it's own breakpoints. > > That's just a bug in CGDB (or at least in its Windows port, if it > exists): it should use smarter checks for identity of files, like the > equivalent of the Posix inode test. Now that's just a difference of opinion. I think GDB should do the smarter checking and CGDB should get the data. That way there are N front ends that can assume the data that GDB is outputting is good. As it stands now, the doco says that the fullname is absolute, and therefor, CGDB expects that filename to be a unqiue key. Thanks, Bob Rossi