Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Make gdbserver work with filename-only binaries

[Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>]

On 1 March 2018 at 03:55, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
>> Simon reminded me that this patch is also a good fit for the 8.1 branch,
>> so I went ahead and pushed it there.
>>
>> 506817a3abd98859eb3474389e756c0253cc28a1
>> 2441702a72f324e41a1624dc042b334f375e2d81
>> 6d607b8812b35ff36fbbad2915696f6669f86a32
>

Hi,

These new patches seem to cause problems with building for ming (using
i686-w64-mingw32-g++):

/gdb/common/pathstuff.c: In function 'gdb::unique_xmalloc_ptr<char>
gdb_realpath(const char*)':
/gdb/common/pathstuff.c:56:14: error: 'MAX_PATH' was not declared in this scope
     char buf[MAX_PATH];
              ^
/gdb/common/pathstuff.c:57:5: error: 'DWORD' was not declared in this scope
     DWORD len = GetFullPathName (filename, MAX_PATH, buf, NULL);
     ^
/gdb/common/pathstuff.c:57:11: error: expected ';' before 'len'
     DWORD len = GetFullPathName (filename, MAX_PATH, buf, NULL);
           ^
/gdb/common/pathstuff.c:63:9: error: 'len' was not declared in this scope
     if (len > 0 && len < MAX_PATH)
         ^
/gdb/common/pathstuff.c:64:54: error: 'buf' was not declared in this scope
       return gdb::unique_xmalloc_ptr<char> (xstrdup (buf));
                                                      ^
make[2]: *** [pathstuff.o] Error 1

I saw this while rebuilding branch 8.1, I didn't check master.

Sorry if this has already been reported, I can't find any mention of
this problem in the list archives.

I suspect there's already a recommended way of handling MAX_PATH cross-platform.

Thanks

Christophe

> Thanks for getting this through, Sergio and Simon.
>
> Just a quick reminder that, now that the .0 is out, all new patches
> pushed on the branch should have a corresponding PR number, with
> the target milestone set to 8.1. This is to be able to give users
> an actionable list of PRs they can look at if they are wondering
> what the difference between 8.0 and 8.1 is. Is there one for this
> issue? If not, it's good enough to create one after the fact, as
> long as the PR points to the various discussions and maybe gives
> the SHA1 of the various commits, I think we're good.
>
> Thank you!
> --
> Joel