Re: [PATCH 5/7] Implement remote_pid_to_exec_file using qXfer:exec-file:read

Doug Evans
2015-04-06T21:57:39Z

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 10:00:08 -0700
>>
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> >> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 12:22:19 +0100
>> >>
>> >> +qXfer:exec-file:read
>> >> + Return the pathname of the file that was executed to create a
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > "the name of the file"
>> >
>> > OK with this change.
>> >
>> >> +@item qXfer:exec-file:read:@var{annex}:@var{offset},@var{length}
>> >> +@anchor{qXfer executable filename read}
>> >> +Return the pathname of the file that was executed to create a process
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > Likewise.
>> >
>> > Otherwise, the documentation parts are OK.
>>
>> "the name of the file" is ambiguous though.
>> Is it the full path name of the file? Or the base name?
>
> I don't know the answers, but if this is a "full path name", then
> "the full absolute name of the file" will convey that.
>
>> While I realize "path" is a term associated with directories
>> (paths in which to find files), "full path name" is in common
>> use for complete/absolute file names.
>
> Yes, we just want to use the latter rather than the former.

I'm curious why "full path name" is a problem though.
It is such a common term.