[PATCH] Also install data-directory into the build directory as computed by relocate_gdb_directory
Thu Oct 4 14:25:00 GMT 2012
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Joel Brobecker <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I think(!) this "can't happen" (if I understand the patch correctly),
>> the installed directory will always be a subdir of $(top_builddir)/..
>> It may be a useless subdirectory of $(top_builddir)/.., but at least
>> it's in the build tree. :-)
>> [Again, assuming I understand the patch correctly.]
> You might be right - I might have missed that. But the patch cannot
> be applied as is, as it relies on a GNU Make feature. So we were
> going to adapt it to use sed instead.
Yeah, I saw the GNU Make usage.
However, that's just an implementation detail, using sed will have the
same result (right?).
>> Another wild idea is to rename the gdb in the build directory as xgdb
>> (akin to xgcc). One could key off that to know gdb is being run from
>> the build directory.
> I think that this is opening the door for allowing GDB to execute
> code without the user being aware of it. I'd rather avoid that.
>> btw, Is there a use-case of yours that I'm missing?
> I do not think so. It's mostly a case where I build and then test
> right away using the binary in the build directory. I've been doing
> that for the past 12 years, and I find it saves time,
> albeit only
> a little. I was exploring the idea of trying to preserve this
> behavior. But I think the cost might be exceeding the benefits.
I too don't want to give up on this yet.
> Thanks for looking into this with us, though. This is not to say
> that the discussion is over; just that, so far, the options suggested
> don't really help enough to be worth implementing (IMO).
More information about the Gdb-patches