From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: ac131313@cygnus.com
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa] Fix DOS clash with mi0-var-*.exp
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:31:00 -0000
Message-id: <3791-Fri29Jun2001102809+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References: <3B3B8433.7020300@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00508.html

> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:23:31 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
> 
> The attatched patch addresses a DOS file name clash caused by all the 
> mi0-var-*.exp files I recently created.
> 
> Is this the correct way to do this?  The files aren't used in a DOS build.

Yes, this is the way.  However:

> + @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi0-var-cmd.exp @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi0-varcmd.exp
> + @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi0-var-child.exp @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi0-varchild.exp

These two still clash: truncation to 8+3 yields "mi0-varc.exp" for
both of them.

Actually, I wonder why do we have to keep those mi0- prefixes.  This
is all in gdb.mi subdirectory, so there should be no need to stress
the fact we are talking about mi.  If the zero is significant, we can
keep it, but "mi" can go, I think.