From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-39220-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 30655 invoked by alias); 4 May 2005 17:51:49 -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 30586 invoked from network); 4 May 2005 17:51:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 May 2005 17:51:45 -0000
Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1DTO1p-000759-Ij; Wed, 04 May 2005 13:51:21 -0400
To: bob@brasko.net
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <20050504135122.GA27415@white> (message from Bob Rossi on Wed, 4
	May 2005 09:51:22 -0400)
Subject: Re: [RFC] fullname attribute for GDB/MI stack frames
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <01c54f50$Blat.v2.4$29b171c0@zahav.net.il> <20050502195515.GA10429@nevyn.them.org> <01c54f57$Blat.v2.4$4c163500@zahav.net.il> <20050502204859.GA6090@nevyn.them.org> <01c54f91$Blat.v2.4$f6e0b160@zahav.net.il> <20050503034604.GA437@nevyn.them.org> <01c55017$Blat.v2.4$3cb51f20@zahav.net.il> <20050503194856.GA4477@nevyn.them.org> <01c55021$Blat.v2.4$520aa7a0@zahav.net.il> <20050504133437.GA10578@nevyn.them.org> <20050504135122.GA27415@white>
Message-Id: <E1DTO1p-000759-Ij@fencepost.gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 17:51:00 -0000
X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00123.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:51:22 -0400
> From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > 
> > No, I don't think it can.  The difference between an absolute path and
> > a partially relative path is that an absolute path has no implicit
> > information.  If GDB reports that one file includes a header c:\abc and
> > another includes \abc, the front end has to guess whether GDB considers
> > those the same file or not.
> 
> This is very true. This will break CGDB for instance. It use's the
> fullname as a unique key to a file. If GDB says that c:\abc has 2
> breakpoints and \abc has 1, CGDB will have 2 source files the user can
> choose and each will contain it's own breakpoints.

That's just a bug in CGDB (or at least in its Windows port, if it
exists): it should use smarter checks for identity of files, like the
equivalent of the Posix inode test.