Re: -remap: Should we remap before / after simplification?

[Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:-

> Not only that: consider a GCC checked-out tree in which a few
> top-level links have been created to a sibling `src' directory in
> which binutils was checked out.  Then, run .../gcc/configure and try
> to bootstrap them together with some 2.96 or newer GCC.
> 
> bfd won't build, because it simplifies .../gcc/bfd/../include
> .../gcc/include, but GCC's include directory doesn't contain bfd's
> headers.

Because bfd is a symlink you mean?  Yes, we don't play happily with
symlinks.

However, we may be able to have our cake and eat it.  The recent changes
I've done have moved the simplification until the last minute.  The
only routine where file names are passed to the OS is open_file, I think,
and this still has the unadulterated composite path.  So, we could just
pass the original path to the O/S, and let it handle the symlinks, but
use simplified paths in our splay tree and diagnostics.

Or, we could just scrap pathname simplification altogether.

What do you think, Zack?

Neil.