From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21415 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2009 18:04:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 21236 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Aug 2009 18:04:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_55,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sif.is.scarlet.be (HELO sif.is.scarlet.be) (193.74.71.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:03:56 +0000 Received: from [172.17.1.10] (ip-81-11-241-121.dsl.scarlet.be [81.11.241.121]) by sif.is.scarlet.be (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n7LI3L3W032581; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:03:22 +0200 Subject: Re: Build question From: Danny Backx Reply-To: danny.backx@scarlet.be To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <83d46pgjkq.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1250803105.11282.96.camel@pavilion> <83d46pgjkq.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:23:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1250877901.11282.116.camel@pavilion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-scarlet.be-Metrics: sif 20001; Body=4 Fuz1=4 Fuz2=4 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00214.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 10:56 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > Just to be certain I understand, you're building a gdb that runs on > your Linux box but that you use to debug something running on Windows? Yes. Windows CE actually - PDA's, smartphones, etc. gdbserver runs on them (required only a small tweak), that's what gdb on Linux talks to. On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 20:31 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Tom Tromey > > I am not familiar with this area in depth. From what you've said it > > sounds like gdb has some confusion about host paths and target paths. > > The way these macros and the corresponding source fragments in GDB are > set, they only DTRT for native debugging. Also right, but it looks like it doesn't take much to make it just work. Tom wrote : > Assuming that is correct, then unfortunately for you I think the best > thing to do would be to separate these concepts and turn the current > HAVE_DOS_BASED_FILE_SYSTEM into a target property. Can you point me in the right direction ? Thanks, Danny -- Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info