This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb/633: fully qualified pathnames in solib_map_sections() andremote debugging
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at ges dot redhat dot com>
- To: nobody at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: gdb-prs at sources dot redhat dot com,
- Date: 12 Aug 2002 14:38:01 -0000
- Subject: Re: gdb/633: fully qualified pathnames in solib_map_sections() andremote debugging
- Reply-to: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at ges dot redhat dot com>
The following reply was made to PR gdb/633; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>, jorma.laaksonen@hut.fi,
gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: gdb/633: fully qualified pathnames in solib_map_sections() and
remote debugging
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:28:33 -0400
>> > I think the search order needs some revision though:
>> > - A cross debugger should not search $PATH or $LD_LIBRARY_PATH
>
>>
>> I agree with this.
>>
>
>> > - A cross debugger may, or may not, want to look for the unmodified
>> > path; I suspect that we only want to look for unmodified relative
>> > paths, not unmodified absolute ones.
>
>>
>> I agree regarding absolute paths.
>>
>> For relative paths, I'm not convinced that it's all that useful to
>> look at the unmodified path. (Doing so requires that you have your
>> cwd set correctly, right?)
>
>
> Yes; I think that's not too unreasonable, though. I can go either way
> on this one; I believe it never comes up in GNU/Linux since the linker
> fills in the full path in the link map. Not 100% sure of that,
> however.
>
>
>> > With those changes you would have to explicitly specify the path to
>> > DSOs in a cross debugger via solib-absolute-prefix and
>> > solib-search-path,
>
>>
>> I think this would be good...
>>
>
>> > and GDB would stop picking up the host libpthread.so
>> > and making gdbserver segfault...
>
>>
>> ...and this too!
>
>
> This leaves only the question of "how". I don't want to change the
> behavior for a native debugger using the remote protocol; just for
> non-native debuggers. How should I check for this? Using configury to
> do it seems contrary to the direction gdbarch is going (i.e. a both
> native and cross debugger in one binary).
This is a target environment thing? So why not ask the target:
target_getenv()
-> qGetenv:<STRING>
<- value
Andrew