Re: gdb/633: fully qualified pathnames in solib_map_sections() andremote debugging

[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: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.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 12:19:52 -0400

 > At the moment, I like the first approach better because it's simpler.
 > I'd prefer that we wait on the more complicated approach until a need
 > is demonstrated for the additional complexity.
 > 
 > 
 >> Adding a local/remote test is going to be easier.
 > 
 > 
 > Do we already have such a test?
 
 Well, looking at some finally dead hacks, ....
 
 int
 remote_Z_write_wp_packet_supported_p (void)
 {
    struct remote_state *rs = get_remote_state ();
    /* Don't even think about it if the remote target isn't selected.  */
    /* FIXME: cagney/2002-05-19: This shouldn't be necessary - the
       WATCHPOINT methods should be in the target vector.  Ulgh!  */
    if (target_shortname == NULL
        || strcmp (target_shortname, "remote") != 0)
      return 0;
 
 notice that the problem it was trying to avoid was with ``target sim''. 
   So in the above the question is no longer local/remote but local VS 
 remote VS sim VS ....
 
 Andrew