From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29787 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2008 19:50:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 29777 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2008 19:50:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:50:17 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A407E15008; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:50:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.92.151] (promb-2s-dhcp151.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.151]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A62BC9A73; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:50:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <494AA848.5050105@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:50:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jerome Guitton CC: "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: global, target-specific, init files References: <20081214124549.GA25544@adacore.com> <20081214183532.GB28806@caradoc.them.org> <20081215115830.GI34644@adacore.com> <20081215154216.GA9832@caradoc.them.org> <20081215164545.GK34644@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20081215164545.GK34644@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-12/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2 Jerome Guitton wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz (drow@false.org): > >> Well, we took a full path. So you'd give it >> $prefix/etc/$target-gdbinit in your case. The path automatically >> relocates along with an installed GDB. Come to think of it, >> I'm not sure entirely how to handle relocation if you want to source >> another file in the same directory, but there's probably a logical >> extension of the current mechanism for that. >> >> Does that clarify? > > It does; I understand now. And I like the way you fixed the problem, > much simpler than my proposal. I have tested it and it works like a > charm. Would it make sense to have this merged into the FSF tree? > FWIW, I think it would make sense...