From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19020 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2012 11:40:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 19012 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2012 11:40:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_SM,T_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; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:40:41 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RlJ1M-00004r-2n; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:40:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:54:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: asmwarrior@gmail.com, dje@google.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20120112064721.GN31383@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:47:21 +0400) Subject: Re: Building GDB 7.3.92 with MinGW Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <83hb03e9sx.fsf@gnu.org> <838vlfe0k9.fsf@gnu.org> <4F0CD948.8080909@gmail.com> <4F0E266C.8080208@gmail.com> <20120112064721.GN31383@adacore.com> 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: 2012-01/txt/msg00400.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:47:21 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: asmwarrior , dje@google.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > So I think in the long run it would be a Good Thing for GDB to try to > > look for its data files relative to the place where the executable is > > installed, and not only on Windows. But that is a separate project; > > at least I would love to see patches along these lines. > > I think we already, unless I misunderstood what you are trying to say. > Every night, we build GDB on one Windows machine and then test it on > all other Windows machines we have, using a different install prefix. > GDB seems to be able to find all auxilary files without problem. > > The only case when path "relocation" is turned off is when the user > configured directories such as the gdb-datadir using a path that is > not a subdir of the prefix. That latter case is what I had in mind. In general, it is a bad mojo to force Windows users to install binaries in some specific tree or under a certain parent directory. E.g., the binary could be configured for d:/usr as a prefix, but installed in c:/foo/bar.