Re: Build question

Danny Backx
2009-08-24T06:24:51Z

On Sat, 2009-08-22 at 12:52 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Danny Backx <danny.backx@scarlet.be>
> > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, 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