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

[Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>]

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:51:21PM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:51:22 -0400
> > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > > 
> > > No, I don't think it can.  The difference between an absolute path and
> > > a partially relative path is that an absolute path has no implicit
> > > information.  If GDB reports that one file includes a header c:\abc and
> > > another includes \abc, the front end has to guess whether GDB considers
> > > those the same file or not.
> > 
> > This is very true. This will break CGDB for instance. It use's the
> > fullname as a unique key to a file. If GDB says that c:\abc has 2
> > breakpoints and \abc has 1, CGDB will have 2 source files the user can
> > choose and each will contain it's own breakpoints.
> 
> That's just a bug in CGDB (or at least in its Windows port, if it
> exists): it should use smarter checks for identity of files, like the
> equivalent of the Posix inode test.

Now that's just a difference of opinion. I think GDB should do the
smarter checking and CGDB should get the data. That way there are N
front ends that can assume the data that GDB is outputting is good.

As it stands now, the doco says that the fullname is absolute, and
therefor, CGDB expects that filename to be a unqiue key.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi