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 15:08:01 -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 11:07:06 -0400
> 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
>
>
> No (although I will get back to qGetenv later... :). We're discussing
> the behavior of the function solib.c:solib_open. It should vary
> depending on whether the current target is native or not, and I don't
> know how to figure that out correctly.
There are two approaches: have solib_open() test for a local/remote
target; or, add methods to the target vector that allow solib_open() to
be written independant of the target.
Adding a local/remote test is going to be easier. Having the code
written local/remote independant might be better long term (but runs the
risk of making things unnecessarily complex).
enjoy,
Andrew