From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14173 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2002 14:37:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14157 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2002 14:37:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 2002 14:37:46 -0000 Received: from dsl093-061-169.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.61.169] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17eGKH-0007D6-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:37:45 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17eGKZ-0006XI-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:38:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Kevin Buettner , jorma.laaksonen@hut.fi, gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb/633: fully qualified pathnames in solib_map_sections() and remote debugging Message-ID: <20020812143803.GA25086@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner , jorma.laaksonen@hut.fi, gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20020806100634.11483.qmail@sources.redhat.com> <20020806132047.GA16450@nevyn.them.org> <1020809231206.ZM11775@localhost.localdomain> <20020812032527.GA3838@nevyn.them.org> <3D57C611.4010403@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D57C611.4010403@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:28:33AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>> I think the search order needs some revision though: > >>> - A cross debugger should not search $PATH or $LD_LIBRARY_PATH > > > >> > >>I agree with this. > >> > > > >>> - A cross debugger may, or may not, want to look for the unmodified > >>> path; I suspect that we only want to look for unmodified relative > >>> paths, not unmodified absolute ones. > > > >> > >>I agree regarding absolute paths. > >> > >>For relative paths, I'm not convinced that it's all that useful to > >>look at the unmodified path. (Doing so requires that you have your > >>cwd set correctly, right?) > > > > > >Yes; I think that's not too unreasonable, though. I can go either way > >on this one; I believe it never comes up in GNU/Linux since the linker > >fills in the full path in the link map. Not 100% sure of that, > >however. > > > > > >>> With those changes you would have to explicitly specify the path to > >>> DSOs in a cross debugger via solib-absolute-prefix and > >>> solib-search-path, > > > >> > >>I think this would be good... > >> > > > >>> and GDB would stop picking up the host libpthread.so > >>> and making gdbserver segfault... > > > >> > >>...and this too! > > > > > >This leaves only the question of "how". I don't want to change the > >behavior for a native debugger using the remote protocol; just for > >non-native debuggers. How should I check for this? Using configury to > >do it seems contrary to the direction gdbarch is going (i.e. a both > >native and cross debugger in one binary). > > This is a target environment thing? So why not ask the target: > > target_getenv() > -> qGetenv: > <- value No (although I will get back to qGetenv later... :). We're discussing the behavior of the function solib.c:solib_open. It should vary depending on whether the current target is native or not, and I don't know how to figure that out correctly. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer