From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31287 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2004 04:27:33 -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 31272 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2004 04:27:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Jul 2004 04:27:32 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.152.191]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id DVN42236; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 07:27:19 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 04:33:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) Message-Id: <9003-Tue20Jul2004072615+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: brobecker@gnat.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com, ac131313@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040719221402.2A8F64B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> (mec.gnu@mindspring.com) Subject: Re: A.R. Index for GDB version 6.1.91_20040719 Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040719221402.2A8F64B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00257.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:14:02 -0400 (EDT) > From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) > > (At first I wanted to use gnat_ada.gpr_in, but then I thought: > what if someone configures in the source directory, and what if > configuration reaches down into testsuite/ even though testsuite/ > does not actually run on msdos). All this does happen on MS-DOS, and therefore gnat_ada.gpr_in is not good because the generated gnat_ada.gpr will overwrite it. > Also my understanding is: if the ms-dos port actually uses the file, the > name has to fit in 8.3. But if the ms-dos port does not use the file, > the name just has to be 8.3 unique with truncation, plus some other > requirements like "no more than one dot". Not really accurate: even if the file _is_ used, we only care that its name is unique after 8.3 truncation (plus some other requirements). This is because all DOS file-related system calls silently truncate file names to 8.3 limits before they start to actually act on the file. > The test suite is not used on ms-dos so null_record.adb and > null_record.exp are fine. They get unpacked as null_rec.adb and > null_rec.exp, so they wouldn't actually work, but they survive the > process of unpacking the tarball. And if the test suite worked for the DJGPP port, these two files would actually work, as explained above, because when the test opens null_record.adb, say, it will happily find null_rec.adb instead. Note that files that are part of the configury stuff are actually accessed on MS-DOS, since the configure script is run in its entirety, as on Unix.