From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22618 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2009 18:32:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 22608 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Apr 2009 18:32:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_33 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:32:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45F72C0AC6; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:32:42 -0400 (EDT) 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 qV-f5sI74X67; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9889B2C0ACA; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 32B52F5A6F; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:32:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Christophe LYON Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] obvious pattern fix in gdb.base/step-line.exp Message-ID: <20090401183240.GD8766@adacore.com> References: <49CCDB3D.5010302@st.com> <20090327184726.GW9472@adacore.com> <49D083FB.6020108@st.com> <20090330170216.GB9472@adacore.com> <49D21E7E.8080708@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49D21E7E.8080708@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 > But I am not 100% sure how to interpret the ANSI C spec regarding the > #line directive: when the name of the source file has no path (as in > step-line.c, where #line xx "step-line.c" is used), which path should be > considered? Not sure either. Perhaps it's just unspecified? > So... is this a bug in the test, in my compiler? If in my compiler, > then I am not sure it's a good idea to apply my fix to the testsuite > :-) I'm OK with leaving the testcase untouched if we don't need to. However, I think it's worth mentioning again what happens in the Ada case: % gnatmake -g `pwd`/foo gcc -c -I/home/brobecke/toto/ -g -I- /home/brobecke/toto/foo.adb gnatbind -x foo.ali gnatlink foo.ali -g Then inserting a breakpoint on procedure Foo: (gdb) b foo Breakpoint 1 at 0x401f0c: file /home/brobecke/toto/foo.adb, line 4. In my opinion, the current behavior in that case is fine too. -- Joel