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

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>]

On Aug 12, 12:19pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> > 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 ....

Actually, I think it's probably better to recast the question in terms
of native vs. non-native targets.  For native targets, I think it's
appropriate for solib_open() to examine the host environment
variables.  (Though there are still cases where even this is wrong.)
For non-native targets, I think the user should be required to have
settings for solib-absolute-prefix and solib-search-path.  (Though
as Daniel pointed out, there are cases when it would be okay to use
the host's environment variables.)

Kevin