[PATCH] Also install data-directory into the build directory as computed by relocate_gdb_directory
Sat Oct 6 20:07:00 GMT 2012
> From: Khoo Yit Phang <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 15:36:13 -0400
> Cc: Khoo Yit Phang <email@example.com>,
> On Oct 6, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> From: Khoo Yit Phang <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 15:02:00 -0400
> >> Cc: Khoo Yit Phang <email@example.com>, Joel Brobecker <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jan Kratochvil <email@example.com>, GDB Patches <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> I think the bigger issue is that $BUILDDIR/gdb/data-directory overrides the standard data-directory. If we detect run-from-builddir based on the presence of other files/directories, and some other application happens to use the same files/directories, then the user is basically stuck with either a non-working gdb (sans -data-directory) or having to uninstall that other application.
> > I see no reason to assume that we will not be able to reliably detect
> > a GDB build directory and to distinguish between that and other
> > projects. Surely, we can find at least one or 2 files that only exist
> > in GDB.
> But we have to make assumptions about other applications that are not under our control, that they do not use the same files, which I think is an assumption that we should avoid if possible (who knows what's out there).
How many other packages will have a file called doc/gdb.info or
doc/gdbint.info in their build tree? How many of them will have
something called i386-cygwin-tdep.o or mi/mi-cmds.o? I could find
many more files whose probability to be in a non-GDB tree is exactly
I think the problem you are afraid of doesn't exist.
More information about the Gdb-patches