From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6187 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2015 21:30:12 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 6163 invoked by uid 89); 14 Apr 2015 21:30:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:30:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3ELU87j014184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:30:08 -0400 Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-95.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.95]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3ELU79K029513; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:30:08 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AD9CE263FB9; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:30:06 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:30:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mark object files with "target:" filenames as OBJF_NONLOCAL_FILENAME Message-ID: <20150414213005.GA28229@blade.nx> References: <1428952063-2121-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <20150414114129.GB4660@blade.nx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00542.txt.bz2 Doug Evans wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > > Doug Evans wrote: > > > While I'm all for building on "foo:bar" in path names > > > (target:foo, remote:foo, and so on), IWBN to build a library on > > > top of that rather than have sideband tables that recorded such > > > extra info. [Down the road I can imagine having a class for > > > such things such that we could augment what's recorded beyond > > > just a "foo:bar" string, but that's later, if ever.] > > > > > > IOW, how about having an "is non-local" predicate that is > > > invoked on the path whenever needed? [it could be the current > > > "is_target_filename" or if you wanted to add a layer of > > > abstraction that might be ok, depending on how this might > > > evolve] > > > > I'm happy to remake this patch using "is_target_filename". I'll > > do that and mail a version 2 tomorrow. > > > > (I've been thinking we might need something more than a prefix at > > some point, maybe something more URL-like, but like you say, we > > don't need that right now.) > > I was thinking, and this is not well thought out, maybe there's > value in replacing OBJF_NOT_FILENAME with a flag that says the > string is "foo:bar", and then we could have another prefix for files > that are currently marked with OBJF_NOT_FILENAME. Just food for > thought, or not. Yeah, if we use some form of URL then the OBJF_NOT_FILENAME ones can fit in there too. Local files would be file://, target ones could be target:// maybe, or target: can be a magic prefix that gets expanded into whatever is necessary. The reason I was thinking we might need something more that what's there now, by the way, is that I was trying to figure out if loaded BFDs should be keyed to the inferior they came from. If we had two non-local inferiors both with target:/lib64/libc.so.6, would GDB consider those the same file somehow? I don't know. Cheers, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/