From: Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>
To: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mark object files with "target:" filenames as OBJF_NONLOCAL_FILENAME
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:30:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150414213005.GA28229@blade.nx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADPb22S3VfMBnG1gwdr8omKicWSNOeQjw4HhodSQU44R32aiGw@mail.gmail.com>
Doug Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Doug Evans wrote:
> > > While I'm all for building on "foo:bar" in path names
> > > (target:foo, remote:foo, and so on), IWBN to build a library on
> > > top of that rather than have sideband tables that recorded such
> > > extra info. [Down the road I can imagine having a class for
> > > such things such that we could augment what's recorded beyond
> > > just a "foo:bar" string, but that's later, if ever.]
> > >
> > > IOW, how about having an "is non-local" predicate that is
> > > invoked on the path whenever needed? [it could be the current
> > > "is_target_filename" or if you wanted to add a layer of
> > > abstraction that might be ok, depending on how this might
> > > evolve]
> >
> > I'm happy to remake this patch using "is_target_filename". I'll
> > do that and mail a version 2 tomorrow.
> >
> > (I've been thinking we might need something more than a prefix at
> > some point, maybe something more URL-like, but like you say, we
> > don't need that right now.)
>
> I was thinking, and this is not well thought out, maybe there's
> value in replacing OBJF_NOT_FILENAME with a flag that says the
> string is "foo:bar", and then we could have another prefix for files
> that are currently marked with OBJF_NOT_FILENAME. Just food for
> thought, or not.
Yeah, if we use some form of URL then the OBJF_NOT_FILENAME ones can
fit in there too. Local files would be file://, target ones could be
target:// maybe, or target: can be a magic prefix that gets expanded
into whatever is necessary.
The reason I was thinking we might need something more that what's
there now, by the way, is that I was trying to figure out if loaded
BFDs should be keyed to the inferior they came from. If we had two
non-local inferiors both with target:/lib64/libc.so.6, would GDB
consider those the same file somehow? I don't know.
Cheers,
Gary
--
http://gbenson.net/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-14 21:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-13 19:07 Gary Benson
2015-04-13 23:27 ` Doug Evans
2015-04-14 11:41 ` Gary Benson
2015-04-14 16:52 ` Doug Evans
2015-04-14 21:30 ` Gary Benson [this message]
2015-04-15 8:03 ` [PATCH v2] Do not manipulate "target:" filenames as local paths Gary Benson
2015-04-23 21:22 ` [PING][PATCH " Gary Benson
2015-04-24 19:16 ` [PATCH " Doug Evans
2015-04-27 14:42 ` Gary Benson
2015-04-15 8:56 ` [PATCH] Mark object files with "target:" filenames as OBJF_NONLOCAL_FILENAME Pedro Alves
2015-04-15 12:09 ` Gary Benson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150414213005.GA28229@blade.nx \
--to=gbenson@redhat.com \
--cc=dje@google.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).