From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27898 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2008 18:51:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 27890 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Feb 2008 18:51:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qnxmail.qnx.com (HELO qnxmail.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:51:37 +0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.42.96.5]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15240; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:37:29 -0500 Received: from [10.42.100.129] (dhcp-100-129 [10.42.100.129]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA12033; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:51:30 -0500 Message-ID: <47AB5332.5010805@qnx.com> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:51:00 -0000 From: Aleksandar Ristovski User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com Subject: Re: Re: [rfc] Use substitute-path for filename portion too References: <20080207182754.GC3907@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20080207182754.GC3907@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00134.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: >>> 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). > > Yes, the patch is good, and it should be on absolute paths only.