This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC]: Solib search (Was: Re: Cross solib support; continued)
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:44:28PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2:29pm, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > I think your patch is OK. If we fail to find it in the absolute path,
> > search for its "absolute" (without leading directory separator[s])
> > path in each directory in the solib-search-path. Then try searching
> > for its basename as a last resort. Right?
>
> I don't like it. In particular, the part I don't like is:
>
> + /* If the search in solib_absolute_prefix failed, and the path name is
> + absolute at this point, make it relative. (openp will try and open the
> + file according to its absolute path otherwise, which is not what we want.)
> + Affects all subsequent searches for this solib. */
> + if (found_file < 0 && IS_DIR_SEPARATOR (in_pathname[0]))
> + in_pathname++;
> +
>
> I do understand Orjan's reasons for doing this, but it seems rather
> fragile to me. I think that we'd be better off doing one of the
> following:
>
> 1) Change openp()'s behavior so that it (optionally) doesn't
> attempt to open a file (which has an absolute path). I.e,
> force it to only consider the paths that we pass it.
>
> 2) Explicitly prepend solib_absolute_prefix to the path in question
> and pass that to openp(). Or, perhaps openp() doesn't even need
> to be called. Perhaps we can do the job with open().
If I understand correctly, that's not what he was trying to accomplish.
He was trying to have openp() search for the "absolute" path after each
member of solib-search-path. Am I wrong?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer