Brian Inglis wrote:
On 2023-09-17 08:01, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
On 16/09/2023 15:17, Christian Franke via Cygwin wrote:
Found during tests of busybox package:
If the path of the top build directory contains a symlink and the project's build scripts normalize pathnames, no debug info is created by cygport.

This is because options like
  -fdebug-prefix-map=${B}=/usr/src/debug/${PF}
have no effect because ${B} contains a symlink but the compiler is run with the real source path.

I think that there was some historical bug with gcc where a relative path for the old path in this mapping wasn't correctly handled, which is why were using an absolute path here at all.

So changing it to something like [1] (if that works), might be better.

[1] https://github.com/jon-turney/cygport/commit/4175d456a9184c5cdebd8bfb4b5ba30583cedd66

Sidenote: we should probably also be using file-prefix-map, now we're on a gcc which supports it.

Definitely. in particular useful in conjunction with reproducible builds and this cygport patch:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/cygwin-apps/2023-August/043108.html
The related newlib-cygwin patch has been pushed already:
https://cygwin.com/git/?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=commit;h=f5e37b93




The postinstall code then does not find any line number info with source path /usr/src/debug/${PF}/...

Could be fixed easily in line 414 of /bin/cygport:

-declare -r top=$(cd ${_topdir}; pwd);
+declare -r top=$(cd ${_topdir}; /bin/pwd);

Can you explain why this makes a difference?

In cygport, pwd is a bash builtin defaulting to -L; /bin/pwd defaults to -P.
Both commands support both options and we might expect the same output.
It would be better to use builtin `pwd -P` if that produces the correct result.

It does.



An STC script which creates test dirs to demonstrate the issue and show the alternative outputs would be nice so anyone can see.

$ ln -s /usr/src /tmp/source

$ cd /tmp/source

$ pwd
/tmp/source

$ /bin/pwd
/usr/src

$ pwd -P
/usr/src

$ /bin/pwd -L
/tmp/source

--
Regards,
Christian

Reply via email to