From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-85792-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 21670 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2011 05:17:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 21655 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Dec 2011 05:17:34 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:17:22 +0000
Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71)	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)	id 1RXQvX-00045Q-Hk; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 00:17:19 -0500
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:17:00 -0000
Message-Id: <E1RXQvX-00045Q-Hk@fencepost.gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: pedro@codesourcery.com
CC: hal9000ed2k@gmail.com, tromey@redhat.com,	dje@google.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org,	pmuldoon@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com, drow@false.org,	jan.kratochvil@redhat.com
In-reply-to: <83fwgzbrp9.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Mon, 05	Dec 2011 05:52:34 +0200)
Subject: Re: [patch] GDB 7.2: new feature for "backtrace" that cuts path to file (remain filename)
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <BANLkTinD+9_Mkug8o2VhZ03L6XSriL_RKQ@mail.gmail.com> <201112041901.04599.pedro@codesourcery.com> <83hb1gaz88.fsf@gnu.org> <201112042100.17292.pedro@codesourcery.com> <83fwgzbrp9.fsf@gnu.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00111.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:52:34 +0200
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Cc: hal9000ed2k@gmail.com, tromey@redhat.com, dje@google.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pmuldoon@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com, drow@false.org, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com
> Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> 
> And what about the question I asked regarding the default?  AFAIK, the
> current behavior is equivalent to `basename', not to `full'.

I think I know the answer.  We show by default whatever the compiler
saw on its command line when it compiled the source file.  E.g., if
the command was

  gcc -c ... /foo/bar/baz.c

then GDB will show "/foo/bar/baz.c", but if the compilation command
was

  gcc -c ... baz.c

then GDB will show "baz.c".

Is that correct?  If so, calling this `full' is misleading, I think,
unless we really change GDB to always show a full absolute file name
there.  If we don't want to change, I suggest to call it `normal' or
maybe `default' (with explanation along the above lines).