This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] GDB 7.2: new feature for "backtrace" that cuts path to file (remain filename)
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: hal9000ed2k at gmail dot com, tromey at redhat dot com, dje at google dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, pmuldoon at redhat dot com, brobecker at adacore dot com, drow at false dot org, jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 21:00:16 +0000
- Subject: Re: [patch] GDB 7.2: new feature for "backtrace" that cuts path to file (remain filename)
- References: <BANLkTinD+9_Mkug8o2VhZ03L6XSriL_RKQ@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On Sunday 04 December 2011 19:55:19, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Pedro Alves <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > On Sunday 04 December 2011 18:41:16, iam ahal wrote:
> > > > of without-compilation-directory.
> > At the risk of being bikesheddy, I suggest "no-compilation-directory" instead.
> > 5 whole letters less. :-) Somehow it sounds more gdb-idiomatic to me.
> Fine with me, but it still falls short of explaining what exactly is
> removed from the file name.
The working directory of the compilation command that produced the
frame's compilation unit. E.g., with:
$ gcc a/b.c
If the debug info supports a notion of compilation directory (DW_AT_comp_dir
in dwarf), the full name is /foo/bar/a/b.c and the compilation
directory is /foo/bar. The no-compilation-directory option
would the show a/b.c .
I'd rather have a positive option, rather than a negative one (no-|without-),
but I'm failing to find a better name. I thought of "relative",
but that's not entirely accurate -- it can be a full path too. I can live
with no-compilation-directory. Just saying I tried and failed.