Re: [patch 2/9] Code cleanup: Drop IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH checks

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:20:24 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:39:38 +0100
> > From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> > 
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:32:25 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > >  int
> > > >  compare_filenames_for_search (const char *filename, const char *search_name)
> > > > @@ -171,7 +171,8 @@ compare_filenames_for_search (const char *filename, const char *search_name)
> > > >       to put the "c:file.c" name into debug info.  Such compatibility
> > > >       works only on GDB built for DOS host.  */
> > > >    return (len == search_len
> > > > -	  || IS_DIR_SEPARATOR (filename[len - search_len - 1])
> > > > +	  || (!IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (search_name)
> > > > +	      && IS_DIR_SEPARATOR (filename[len - search_len - 1]))
> > > >  	  || (HAS_DRIVE_SPEC (filename)
> > > >  	      && STRIP_DRIVE_SPEC (filename) == &filename[len - search_len]));
> > > >  }
> > > 
> > > I don't understand why the "match up to a slash" rule is now limited
> > > to non-absolute file names.
> > 
> > FILENAME may contain for example:           /path/to//file.c
> > Then we may request to put a breakpoint to:          /file.c:main
> > And without
> > the '!IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (search_name) &&' part it would falsely match.
> 
> Thanks for explaining.  However, IMO i's wrong to test for double
> slash with IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH, because the same could happen with
> foo//bar.c, right?  So why not explicitly test for consecutive
> slashes instead?

I do not understand much what do you suggest.

Remaining problem is that /path/to//file.c does not match /path/to/file.c or
that /path/file.c does not match /path/to/../file.c and so on.

I find these bugs outside of the scope of this patchset, this patchset only
tried to handle correctly /path/to/file.c matching, which was big enough IMO
to post it and upstream.

This specific patch is "Code cleanup" so it should have no visible changes, it
is only simplification of the caller-callee implementation so it mimics in the
callee (compare_filenames_for_search) what every of the callers was doing.


Thanks,
Jan