This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: shared lib dos filename style - one more question
- From: Danny Backx <danny dot backx at scarlet dot be>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:03:51 +0200
- Subject: Re: shared lib dos filename style - one more question
- References: <1253973110.10921.76.camel@pavilion> <1254946075.10921.178.camel@pavilion> <20091007201145.GA21557@caradoc.them.org>
- Reply-to: danny dot backx at scarlet dot be
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 16:11 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:07:55PM +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> > No reply to the message below. I'm including my current work now. Please
> > comment.
> I've been staying out of this conversation because I don't have time
> to discuss it properly, but I am still skeptical that this should ever
> be a user setting - I've yet to see a plausible problem if we always
> handled both styles of filesystem.
> If it does need to be a user setting, IMO it's acceptable to make
> users set it in their .gdbinit or on the GDB command line.
I'm sure that any effects of discouragement at my end are not the
intention of this message :-)
I'm perfectly willing to continue work on this (makes no sense to drop
it now), but I'd like to know where to go from here.
I'll ask some questions, maybe this'll give clarity :
1. If this work (or the way it's currently implemented) is questionable,
then why have an effect on libiberty ?
So : do we want this to go as far as extending libiberty slightly ?
2. This may all be much too complicated. Stuff the solution, make sure
that forward slashes as well as backslashes as well as C:/ stuff
are always supported.
A very good or a very bad idea ?
It would conflict with the "let's take this one step at a time" that
someone told me.
3. Great idea. We'll get more of this soon. But let's not go further
right now. Implement it as is, don't go the extra mile to re-
evaluate everything if the user changes the variable in the middle
of a session.
What's good or bad about this ?
4. gdbserver is a bad idea. gdb shouldn't bother with debugging
architectures that look different from the development host.
I'm not sure what the question is here.
These may be bad questions but it feels like the right time to stir up
Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info