Re: Better realpath

[Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink dot net>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:26:54 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>,
> > 	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> >
> > It seems to me that the thing to do is eliminate gdb_realpath in favor
> > of lrealpath.  That's supposed to be a portable version of realpath,
> > so realpath semantics seem like the way to go.
> >     
>
> I don't mind doing so, although libiberty has other customers, which
> could make it harder for us to do what we think is right (if it
> happens to be different from what lrealpath does now).  Note that
> right now, lrealpath does not behave consistently with realpath (if
> the latter is unavailable), so it cannot be regarded as a portable
> version of realpath, at least not entirely so.
>   
Most likely libiberty's other customers (read: other GNU components :-) 
) want consistent behavior, and I'm inclined to think they would prefer 
consistency with each other over consistency with "real" realpath. There 
is nothing preventing us from adding additional functions to libiberty 
also, if we want to split functionality in a better way. One maintenance 
bonus of libiberty usage that it forestalls the introduction of subtle 
dependencies on GDB internals, always a hazard with our tangle of headers.

Stan