From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18936 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2008 18:28:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 18927 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Feb 2008 18:28:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:27:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B432AAA2B; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id IKsjQtgGUwlO; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E346A2AAA2A; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:27:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B69E6E7ACB; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:27:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:28:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com Subject: Re: [rfc] Use substitute-path for filename portion too Message-ID: <20080207182754.GC3907@adacore.com> References: <20080207174645.GA19452@caradoc.them.org> <20080207175658.GB3907@adacore.com> <20080207181346.GA21484@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080207181346.GA21484@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00133.txt.bz2 > > Do we want to restrict this to filenames that are absolute paths? > > Imagine the filename was codesourcery/bar/bar.h and the rewrite was > > s/codesourcery/adacore/, do we want to attempt the rewrite then? > > I suppose we should wait to see a real example of such a situation > > before trying to support it... > > Are such rules supported? I couldn't work out from the manual > what FROM and TO had to be. Yes, the documentation is not completely clear on this. After re-reading it, I think it seems to suggest that rewriting is done on the full path, not partial path names. Thinking about supporting it or not, I couldn't really come up with an answer. It seems that it could be surprising either way - which is why waiting for real-case scenarios would probably make sense here (and apply the patch as you and Doug suggested). -- Joel