Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

The llvm patches have been posted as: , < https://reviews.llvm.org/D45942>. On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 at 22:12, Greg Clayton wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Pavel Labath wrote: > > > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 at 17:14, Greg Clayton wrote: > >>> On Apr 20, 2018,

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

> On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Pavel Labath wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 at 17:14, Greg Clayton wrote: >>> On Apr 20, 2018, at 1:08 AM, Pavel Labath wrote: >>> >>> >>> So, I can see the case for both, and I don't really have a clear >>> preference. All I would say is, whichever way we ch

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 at 17:14, Greg Clayton wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2018, at 1:08 AM, Pavel Labath wrote: > > > > > > So, I can see the case for both, and I don't really have a clear > > preference. All I would say is, whichever way we choose, we should make it > > very explicit so that the users of

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

>> Yes, that's exactly what the author of this test (me) had in mind. :)>> And it's not just a hypothetical posix thing either. Windows and cygwin>> both use \\ and // to mean funny things. I remember also seeing something>> like that on linux, though I can't remember now what was it being used for

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

> On Apr 20, 2018, at 1:08 AM, Pavel Labath wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 at 19:20, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:14 AM Greg Clayton via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > >>> Also, looking at the tests fo

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 at 19:20, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:14 AM Greg Clayton via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Also, looking at the tests for normalizing paths I found the following pairs of pre-normalized and post-

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

> On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:33 AM, Jim Ingham wrote: > > I can't see any reason why we benefit from having these differently spelled > equivalent paths floating around. You want to be careful to preserve the > path syntax, since it would be weird to be cross debugging to a Windows > machine an

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

We actually use it in some places, but it's limited. Before I did that was when I added the PathSyntax to FileSpec which essentially servers the same purpose. We could in theory drop PathSyntax now that LLVM supports all of the same functionality. It's a pretty invasive refactor though which I n

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

I can't see any reason why we benefit from having these differently spelled equivalent paths floating around. You want to be careful to preserve the path syntax, since it would be weird to be cross debugging to a Windows machine and have to type Posix paths. But other than that, removing all t

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

> On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:19 AM Jim Ingham via lldb-dev > wrote: > The last time I looked at the llvm functions they only support the path > syntax of the llvm host, which won't do for lldb. But maybe they have gotten > more g

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:19 AM Jim Ingham via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The last time I looked at the llvm functions they only support the path > syntax of the llvm host, which won't do for lldb. But maybe they have > gotten more general recently? > > Yes in fact I was the on

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:14 AM Greg Clayton via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Also, looking at the tests for normalizing paths I found the following > pairs of pre-normalized and post-normalization paths for posix: > > {"//", "//"}, > {"//net", "//net"}, > > Why woul

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

The last time I looked at the llvm functions they only support the path syntax of the llvm host, which won't do for lldb. But maybe they have gotten more general recently? Jim > On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Davide Italiano via lldb-dev > wrote: > > IIRC We have path normalization function

Re: [lldb-dev] FileSpec and normalization questions

IIRC We have path normalization functions in llvm, have you looked at them? Thanks, -- Davide On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Greg Clayton via lldb-dev wrote: > We currently have DWARF that has a DW_AT_comp_dir that is set to "./" > followed by any number of extra '/' characters. I would like