This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Patch: search `directory' path for `break' files
- To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: Patch: search `directory' path for `break' files
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Date: 11 Oct 2001 22:01:23 -0600
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il
- References: <87r8sq6fa9.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <15301.63906.512294.33906@krustylu.cygnus.com>
- Reply-To: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Elena" == Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com> writes:
Elena> 1. Could you please check in the cleanup of lookup_symtab_1 as a
Elena> separate obvious fix?
Done.
Thanks for your reviews. I'll try soon to address the points you
raised and resubmit the patches. It might be a little while since any
gdb hacking I do is on my own time.
Elena> 2. I was about to approve your patch, which is ok, when I got
Elena> curious about why symtab_to_filename wasn't used
Elena> anywhere. Seeing it was introduced by Stu Grossman, I thought
Elena> of gdbtk, and voila' there it is. Have you looked at
Elena> gdbtk-cmds.c:full_lookup_symtab() ? Does it do what you need?
Elena> If so, could we avoid code duplication by having only one copy
Elena> of the same function?
I did run across this function after submitting my patch. I think my
patch obsoletes this function, and we can investigate removing it.
full_lookup_symtab() doesn't really do the same thing as my patch
though, at least as I understand it. I'm not 100% certain about what
is going on there since I don't know what the typical inputs to
full_lookup_symtab() look like.
When you say the patch is ok does that mean I can check in the rest of
it? Or should I try to handle psymtabs and directory names first?
Tom