From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-13933-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 14749 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2002 07:44:47 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 14734 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 07:44:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO frigg.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.16)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 07:44:44 -0000
Received: from zaretsky (diup-217-188.inter.net.il [213.8.217.188])
	by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2)
	with ESMTP id BHU27916;
	Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:44:36 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 23:44:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: brobecker@ACT-Europe.FR
Message-Id: <5567-Fri05Apr2002104019+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <20020403151909.I26661@act-europe.fr> (message from Joel
	Brobecker on Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:19:09 +0200)
Subject: Re: [RFC] xfullpath and new regression test xfullpath.exp
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References: <20020401105021.A13168@act-europe.fr> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020401122551.22923D-100000@is> <20020402172232.C25687@act-europe.fr> <7458-Wed03Apr2002160810+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <20020403151909.I26661@act-europe.fr>
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:19:09 +0200
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@ACT-Europe.FR>
> 
> > >    if (IS_DIR_SEPARATOR (real_path[strlen (real_path) - 1]))
> > >      result = concat (real_path, base_name, NULL);
> > >    else
> > >      result = concat (real_path, SLASH_STRING, base_name, NULL);
> > 
> > Yes, I think this is better, thanks.
> > 
> > > (can I consider that SLASH_STRING will always be one character long?):
> > 
> > Where does the code assume it's a single character?  `concat' conses
> > up a new string, right?  If so, the length of SLASH_STRING shouldn't
> > matter, I think.  Or am I missing something?
> 
> I implicitely make this assumption when I use the IS_DIR_SEPARATOR
> macro to check the value of the last character in the real_path string,
> and then use SLASH_STRING during the concat.

You don't need to worry about that: it's IS_DIR_SEPARATOR's job to
DTRT for each platform, even if the directory separator is not a
single character.

> If all is fine, I'll resubmit a new patch shortly.

Please do.  Thanks.