From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13093 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2005 14:51:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 13085 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Dec 2005 14:51:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:51:07 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1Ek0dN-000757-0F for gdb@sourceware.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:51:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Filename with "./" in breakpoint command Message-ID: <20051207145104.GA27164@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <200512050953.01350.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20051205185556.GA9808@nevyn.them.org> <20051206045518.GA23837@nevyn.them.org> <20051206201719.GA9140@nevyn.them.org> <20051206210900.GA10747@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-12/txt/msg00077.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 10:46:54AM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Vladimir's original report is for communication from an IDE to GDB. > > "Find the best match" and "ask the user" aren't very helpful; the IDE > > needs to unambiguously specify what file it's already opened and is > > showing to the user, in a way that GDB can understand precisely what > > file is meant. Absolute pathnames seem awfully convenient for that. > > Yes. I've just suggested that not supporting relative paths can be not very > convenient for those directly using console interface. Especially when you > say "break ./tracepoint.cpp:NNN", gdb suggests that this file might be in > shared library that's no loaded yet, which can confuse users even more. > > I think either: > > 1. Relative paths should be handled fine, or > 2. Relative paths should produce a warning from gdb. I'd rather #1. But, there's a lot of room for what "fine" is. Relative only to $cdir? Relative to the directory search path? > > For a user typing "break foo.c:54" we've already agreed on a more > > useful behavior - though no promises when it will be implemented! > > Which one is that? Setting breakpoint on each file matching foo.c, or > prompting? Multiple breakpoints. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC