From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5253 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2008 21:32:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 5242 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jan 2008 21:32:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:31:37 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-229-116-121.inter.net.il [84.229.116.121]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id IUE76206 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:27:39 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:32:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: "Doug Evans" CC: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ARistovski@qnx.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, RMansfield@qnx.com In-reply-to: (dje@google.com) Subject: Re: [patch] IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH to handle both DOS and POSIX path st yles Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <2F6320727174C448A52CEB63D85D11F40A58@nova.ott.qnx.com> <20080106054030.GA10410@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00119.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 09:35:30 -0800 > From: "Doug Evans" > Cc: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ARistovski@qnx.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, RMansfield@qnx.com > > On Jan 6, 2008 8:17 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 13:07:25 -0800 > > > From: "Doug Evans" > > > Cc: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ARistovski@qnx.com, > > > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, RMansfield@qnx.com > > > > > > What would the option apply to? How would the user know when and when > > > not to use it? > > > > I don't really understand the question. How would the user know when > > to use any other option? If they read the documentation and > > understand the issues, they will know. > > I realize the question may sound odd. I asked it because the range to > which the option may apply seems vast, whereas the range to which it > will be applied (AIUI) seems small, leading to excessive confusion. Many GDB options are used only in very rare cases. That doesn't make them less useful: when you are in that rare situation, these options are a godsend. > Perhaps I should have written "gdb > prog.with.other.path.format.in.debug.info". :-) > As a datapoint, and to give some context for the above, I patched > filenames.h to print a message whenever IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH is called. > > dje@ruffy:~$ ./gdb -nx hello > GNU gdb 6.7.50.20080104-cvs > Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later > This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. > There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying" > and "show warranty" for details. > This GDB was configured as "i686-linux"... > IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (/home/dje/hello.x32) > IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (/home/dje/hello.x32) > IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (start.S) > IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (../sysdeps/i386/elf/start.S) > IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (crti.S) > IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (/build/buildd/glibc-2.3.6/build-tree/i386-libc/csu/crti.S) > IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (hello.c) > IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (hello.c) > IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (crtn.S) > IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH (/build/buildd/glibc-2.3.6/build-tree/i386-libc/csu/crtn.S) What GDB code causes these calls, and why?