From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21564 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2009 06:24:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 21253 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2009 06:24:50 -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; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 06:24:39 +0000 Received: from [172.17.1.10] (ip-81-11-242-167.dsl.scarlet.be [81.11.242.167]) by sif.is.scarlet.be (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n7O6OCMf031882; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:24:13 +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: <83skfkfa4n.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1250803105.11282.96.camel@pavilion> <83d46pgjkq.fsf@gnu.org> <1250877901.11282.116.camel@pavilion> <83ab1tgh9h.fsf@gnu.org> <1250880746.11282.128.camel@pavilion> <1250931899.11282.142.camel@pavilion> <83skfkfa4n.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:11:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1251095160.16357.352.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/msg00235.txt.bz2 On Sat, 2009-08-22 at 12:52 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Danny Backx > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sourceware.org > > Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:04:58 +0200 > > > > 1. The one I suggested earlier. May not be the right solution. > > 2. Generalize target filename handling in gdb. Might be much harder than > > expected. > > 3. Separate directory and file name in the communication between > > gdbserver and gdb, so mixup 2 is avoided. > > 4. Extend gdbserver/gdb communication so the target file name syntax > > is reported back. > > 5. Do (4) but in gdb target properties (this may be what Eli said). > > Would require extending the gdb target definitions. > > > > Comments ? > > Can you point out the places in the code (hopefully, not too many) > where the Posix assumption about file-name syntax needs to be replaced > with the Windows assumption? > > If there are not too many of them, we could modify them to use one or > two user options. For starters, these options would need to be set > manually, by the user who knows what filesystem she is working with. > Later, we could try to set them automatically. I'll try this. Daniel Jacobowitz wrote : > I'm of the opinion that we could save ourselves a heck of a lot of > trouble by allowing both DOS and POSIX pathnames. This breaks on > POSIX systems where you have directories starting with "c:" in the > current directory, or files containing backslashes - both quite > unlikely. The only touchy bit is case sensitivity, of course... This is the simpler assumption, that I was somehow wondering about but didn't write. But if I do the above, then getting to this should be easy. Danny -- Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info