This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

proposal: substitute-path handles foreign dir separators


Hi

This is my first patch sent to this list. Please let me know if I'm doing something wrong.

This is a not a bug fix, it's a feature: This patch extends 'substitute-path' to handle paths containing 'foreign' directory separators. Means e.g.: A powerpc-eabi-gdb running on Linux can handle powerpc-eabi-binaries built on Windows and vice versa.

Several points need to be considered:
1. Most importantly: Do we want such a 'feature'? Personally, I think it makes sense to have such a feature. A prominent use case may occur when developing for an embedded system. Having platform independent IDEs like Eclipse together with the GNU toolchain (cygwin, mingw, *nix) makes it possible that some members of a development team work on e.g. Windows, while the rest works on e.g. Linux. "Working" in this case could mean that people compile their code and probably create libraries on their (preferred) OS. Later these libraries will be linked together to a binary which will end up on an embedded target that needs to be debugged. (Sure you can argue that this wouldn't happen if they'd use a buildmachine, but...). Debugging, again, may be done by a person using Linux or Windows. That's where this patch would become useful.


To continue the discussion lets assume that we all want this feature.
2. I created this patch because I actually debug binaries on a Linux box which have been created on a Windows machine (GNU toolchain/Cygwin). Empirically, I've realized that 'substitute-path' doesn't work for this purpose. After having single-stepped GDB and modified its code slightly, I ended up with this patch. The point is that I figured it out empirically. It could the case that I justed missed an already existing solution. Please let me know if my patch is crap because there exists another way of handling my use case.


3. I didn't write any tests yet. I would write them if the patch would get accepted. If this would be the case, it would be nice if you could give me some hints where to start (which file, what kind of test, ...)

4. I didn't verify/test my code on any other system than Linux. I could test it on Windows (mingw) if you would accept the patch

5. I didn't yet fill out the 'copyright assignment' form (mentioned in the CONTRIBUTE file). I would do so if required.


Raphael



Attachment: substitute-path.diff
Description: Text document


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]