From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29589 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2003 23:22:35 -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 29582 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2003 23:22:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO redhat.com) (24.131.133.249) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2003 23:22:34 -0000 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 5692832A8A7; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:22:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:22:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Path handling bug in GDB included with MingW 3.1.0-1 Message-ID: <20031007232234.GA13268@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <002d01c38b8a$6e2d34f0$2101a8c0@kyromaster> <1438-Tue07Oct2003231328+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <1438-Tue07Oct2003231328+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00127.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 11:13:28PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>From: "Michael Stather" >>Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 23:48:35 +0200 >>=20 >> g++ -g -o p.exe c:/p/p.cpp -mwindows >> gdb >> break "c:/p/p.cpp:7" >> Run >>=20 >> gdb won=7Ft stop at the breakpoint. >> however if I do: >>=20 >> cd c:\m >> g++ -g -o p.exe p.cpp -mwindows >> gdb >> break "p.cpp:7" >> run >>=20 >> it breaks correctly. > >Sounds like the MinGW port isn't writing leading directories of the >files into the debug info. > >Questions: > >What is the default debug info format used by the MinGW port of GCC? > >Does it help to use -gstabs+ instead of just -g? > >Do you see the leading directories of the source file names if you >run "objdump --debug" on the object files? Do we *really* want to go down the road of supporting a patched gdb here? There are people who are familiar with the changes that have gone into mingw gdb in the mingw mailing list. For whatever reason, they have chosen not to spend any time getting their patches back into gdb proper and do not, apparently, read this mailing list. I don't see any reason why we should be taking up bandwidth trying to support what is essentially a gdb fork here. Do we support Apple's gdb users here? I don't think we do and this is a similar issue. cgf