addr2line and the name of the executable
Wed Feb 26 11:14:00 GMT 2003
Mohan Embar writes:
> > > Andrew> gnu.gcj.prognamegnu.gcj.progname should probably be argv, unmangled by anuything.
> > >
> > > That would mean that my patch would have _Jv_ThisExecutable() potentially
> > > return something different than gnu.gcj.progname.
> >Yes. Definitely. We shouldn't intermix the implementation of
> >gnu.gcj.progname and argv; they have completely different purposes.
> I'm running into a small snag with this. If we want gnu.gcj.progname
> always equal to argv,
We don't. There is no connection.
> then this behavior is inconsistent with the current implementation
> today: because today if HAVE_PROC_SELF_EXE is defined, then
> gnu.gcj.progname becomes /proc/XXX/exe. I don't see why
> gnu.gcj.progname is allowed to be /proc/XXX/exe in the case of
> HAVE_PROC_SELF_EXE, but not the full path to the executable in the
> case of Win32.
Neither do I. This is a good plan.
> Semantically, argv and the full path to the executable are the
> same in the case of Win32,
Ok. Full path, drive letter, server name, everything? I didn't know that.
> and given that gnu.gcj.progname is allowed to be something other
> than argv in one already-existing current implementation, I
> don't see the harm in allowing it to be something different (albeit
> way more semantically equivalent than /proc/XXX/exe) in Win32 also.
> May I have:
> gnu.gcj.progname = _Jv_ThisExecutable() = whatever the implementation chooses?
Let gnu.gcj.progname be argv.
Let _Jv_ThisExecutable() be a full path to the executable.
As long as both of these are satisfied, everything's fine.
More information about the Java