From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1442 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2007 12:35:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 1429 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Sep 2007 12:35:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:35:34 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3610982C5; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:35:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE9179814E; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:35:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ITd3b-0005YR-Q5; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:35:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pawel K Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb changes the path Message-ID: <20070907123531.GA21334@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pawel K , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20070907114628.GA18775@caradoc.them.org> <227141.71071.qm@web33804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <227141.71071.qm@web33804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2007-09/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 05:32:01AM -0700, Pawel K wrote: > --- Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 02:14:45AM -0700, Pawel K > > wrote: > > > 2. How to force gdb to use the relative path as in > > > breakpoint nr 3 above ? > > > > Why? It's a different name for the same file, and > > GDB knows its full > > name. > > Since when I specify the breakpoint like: > (gdb) bre functions.h:100 > > I cannot "list" the source lines. You may want to try a GDB 6.7 snapshot. I hope this has been improved. > Do You have any idea what can be wrong ? No, sorry. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery