From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6206 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2013 15:18:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 6198 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jan 2013 15:18:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 15:18:48 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MGV00F00P4Y0W00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:18:46 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MGV00EWPP7AYI30@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:18:46 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 15:18:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [patch 2/9] Code cleanup: Drop IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH checks In-reply-to: <20130119140914.GA7303@host2.jankratochvil.net> To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <834nidqjz2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20130117215846.GC16249@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83fw1z6j5i.fsf@gnu.org> <20130118183938.GA1255@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83r4li5mdj.fsf@gnu.org> <20130118193457.GA4369@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83mww65iok.fsf@gnu.org> <20130118211002.GA9261@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83d2x1r7iy.fsf@gnu.org> <20130119140914.GA7303@host2.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2013-01/txt/msg00464.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 15:09:14 +0100 > From: Jan Kratochvil > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 07:50:13 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Could you give an example? Previously it was forbidden/unspecified what > > > happens when you call compare_filenames_for_search > > > with IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (search_name). > > > > Any absolute file name would be an example. > > Could you state literal SEARCH_NAME, literal FILENAME, what is a result you > expect and what do you you think is the actual result with this patch? > > I have double/triple checked this patch and I do not see a bug there. It might not be a bug, but the code doesn't tell what it means, and has no comments to explain its subtleties. IOW, it isn't clean. > For example when asking for a breakpoint at: > c:\filename.c:main > it must not match a debug info filename: > d:\foo\c:\filename.c Why not? > Moreover this patch is a "Code cleanup" and the callers were already using > IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH. So if IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH is wrong (which IMO so far it is > not) then it is still a new patch / unrelated fix, not the scope of this > patch. Whatever. I'm still unconvinced, I think the code is not sufficiently cleaned up. But I'm tired of arguing.