This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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]

Re: [RFC] fullname attribute for GDB/MI stack frames


On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 05:39:43PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
>On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:12:48AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> > Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:56:50 -0400
>> > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
>> > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>> > 
>> > When I originally added the field fullname, I purposely picked that name
>> > because I was unsure if the path would always be absolute. However, it
>> > was to my understand, that it would always be. Thus, in the manual I
>> > put,
>> > 
>> >    Synopsis
>> >     -file-list-exec-source-file
>> > 
>> >    List the line number, the current source file, and the absolute path to
>> >    the current source file for the current executable.
>> > 
>> > I always expected the fullname to be absolute.
>> 
>> As I tried to explain, the Windows file names have a semi-absolute
>> form.  That form is generally treated like an absolute file name
>> because the single most important cause for a program to test a file
>> name for being absolute is to decide whether we need to prepend the
>> cwd to it; d:foo and \abc certainly don't need that!  The fullname
>> field uses the machinery that was invented mainly for that purpose, so
>> it inherits the same behavior.
>
>OK, I'm going to add the examples d:foo and \abc to the doco.  This
>could potentially help FE developers understand these odd case's when
>they appear.  Also, it's important to say that the fullname is not
>necessarily absolute, but simply the most precise file name that GDB
>has.

Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the fullpath machinery?

cgf


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