This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: one week to gdb-7.6 release?
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, palves at redhat dot com, jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com, ralf dot corsepius at rtems dot org, vapier at gentoo dot org, joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com
- Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:57:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: one week to gdb-7.6 release?
- References: <20130320160032 dot GC5447 at adacore dot com> <83vc8myoyb dot fsf at gnu dot org> <83ehf64cfs dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20130323162534 dot GI5447 at adacore dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:25:34 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, palves@redhat.com,
> jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, ralf.corsepius@rtems.org,
> vapier@gentoo.org, joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com
>
> > 2013-03-18 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> >
> > * windows-nat.c (windows_get_absolute_argv0): New function.
> > * windows-nat.h: Add its prototype.
> >
> > * main.c (get_init_files): Use filename_ncmp instead of strncmp.
> > Use IS_DIR_SEPARATOR instead of looking for a character inside
> > SLASH_STRING. Include filenames.h.
> > (captured_main) [__MINGW32__]: Make argv[0] absolute, so that
> > relocate_gdb_directory works when passed gdb_program_name.
> > Include windows-nat.h.
>
> I think that the patch, as is, breaks the windows-hosted cross-debugger
> builds. windows-nat.o is only linked in when configured as a native
> debugger:
>
> if test "${gdb_native}" = "yes"; then
> host_makefile_frag=${srcdir}/config/${gdb_host_cpu}/${gdb_host}.mh
>
> I think that the standard approach in this case would be to define
> a function in utils.h, and have its implementation in both posix-hdep.c
> and mingw-hdep.c.
What would the implementation in posix-hdep.c look like? Just return
its argument, xstrdup'ed?
> A minor nitpick on coding style: Can you add an empty line between
> the comment documenting a function ands its definition?
I don't mind, but this style is not uniformly used in the sources.
Quite a few places don't leave that empty line. (I'm accustomed to
the latter, which is why I used that.)