From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11565 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2006 02:03:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 11392 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jun 2006 02:03:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao02.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao02.cox.net) (68.230.240.37) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 02:03:27 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060626020324.LPUV15470.eastrmmtao02.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>; Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:03:24 -0400 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FugRq-0004yl-3Y; Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:03:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 02:19:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Joel Brobecker , Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Should "dir" override the full path encoded in debug info? Message-ID: <20060626020333.GA22589@brasko.net> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20060624065920.GB22750@adacore.com> <20060624071058.GD22750@adacore.com> <20060624075143.GF22750@adacore.com> <20060624133051.GB26555@nevyn.them.org> <20060625040715.GH22750@adacore.com> <20060626015318.GI22750@adacore.com> <20060626015636.GA14263@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060626015636.GA14263@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00224.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 09:56:36PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 06:53:18PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > I think there's no need to mention `source', since `dir' doesn't, > > > either. So how about `subst-dir' or `alt-dir'? > > > > I'm ok with alt-dir. Any objection? > > I think it's been condensed a little too far; I'd think it was an > alternate to "dir", which isn't quite the case. Would substitute-dir > be too wordy? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't something like substitute-path be more correct. I mean, this doesn't relate to a dir or a filename does it? I may not completly understand what the new functions input/output is though. Bob Rossi