labath added inline comments.
================
Comment at: source/Utility/FileSpec.cpp:406
+ m_directory.Clear();
+ }
}
----------------
clayborg wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > clayborg wrote:
> > > > they resolve to the same file in a virtual filesystem, where all
> > > > referenced path components exist and are directories
> > >
> > > Normalizing happens after resolving and if we don't resolve a path, we
> > > have no way to know what is a directory and what isn't. We will be
> > > setting breakpoints for remote targets quite a bit in LLDB and ww can't
> > > assume or stat anything in a path. So I would say FileSpec's are
> > > equivalent if the relative paths match all components.
> > >
> > > > Now the (c) part would imply that foo/.. should normalize to ./. and
> > > > not ., which is a bit odd, but it is consistent with our stated
> > > > intention of preserving directory information. If we do not want to
> > > > have ./. here, then we need to come up with a different definition of
> > > > what it means to be "normalized".
> > >
> > > I guess we could make the m_directory contain "." and m_filename contain
> > > nothing for the "./." case. It doesn 't make sense to have "." in both
> > > places.
> > >> they resolve to the same file in a virtual filesystem, where all
> > >> referenced path components exist and are directories
> >
> > > Normalizing happens after resolving and if we don't resolve a path, we
> > > have no way to know what is a directory and what isn't. We will be
> > > setting breakpoints for remote targets quite a bit in LLDB and ww can't
> > > assume or stat anything in a path.
> >
> > Yes, I am aware of that. I am not saying this is how we should actually
> > implement the normalization algorithm. I am trying define what a
> > "normalization" is in the first place, so that we can then judge whether a
> > particular normalization algorithm is good or not. I think defining
> > normalization in terms of an actual filesystem makes sense, since at the
> > end of the day, our algorithm should somehow approximate what happens in
> > real file systems. I am not saying the algorithm should be doing any stats,
> > but for the verification (either in our heads or in the tests) we can use
> > certainly use stats or actual file systems.
> >
> > > So I would say FileSpec's are equivalent if the relative paths match all
> > > components.
> >
> > This is too vague to be useful. I have no idea how I would apply this
> > definition to determine if e.g. "/foo/../bar.txt" and "./bar.txt" are
> > equivalent. And you didn't say anything about how to derive the normal form
> > for a `FileSpec`.
> >
> > >> Now the (c) part would imply that foo/.. should normalize to ./. and not
> > >> ., which is a bit odd, but it is consistent with our stated intention of
> > >> preserving directory information. If we do not want to have ./. here,
> > >> then we need to come up with a different definition of what it means to
> > >> be "normalized".
> >
> > > I guess we could make the m_directory contain "." and m_filename contain
> > > nothing for the "./." case. It doesn 't make sense to have "." in both
> > > places.
> >
> > I don't think that is very useful, as then this would be the only special
> > case where normalization would produce a FileSpec without a filename
> > component.
> >> So I would say FileSpec's are equivalent if the relative paths match all
> >> components.
>
> > This is too vague to be useful. I have no idea how I would apply this
> > definition to determine if e.g. "/foo/../bar.txt" and "./bar.txt" are
> > equivalent. And you didn't say anything about how to derive the normal form
> > for a FileSpec.
>
> "/foo/../bar.txt" would be normalized to "/bar.txt" and "./bar.txt" will,
> after switching to llvm's remove_dots, be normalized to "bar.txt". So those
> could be though of as equivalent since one is only a basename and would only
> need to match the filename. If you have "/foo/bar/baz.txt", it could be
> equivalent to "bar/baz.txt" by making sure the filename's match, and if
> either or both path is relative, then matching as many directories as are
> specified.
>
>
> >> I guess we could make the m_directory contain "." and m_filename contain
> >> nothing for the "./." case. It doesn 't make sense to have "." in both
> >> places.
>
> > I don't think that is very useful, as then this would be the only special
> > case where normalization would produce a FileSpec without a filename
> > component.
>
> Ok, then leave it as is with "." in filename, not directory. We don't need it
> in both places IMHO
Ok, if we start using llvm's `remove_dots` as our normalization algorithm, then
both of these issues will become moot (and I believe I have a fairly good
understanding of how `remove_dots` works).
================
Comment at: source/Utility/FileSpec.cpp:857
+ !IsPathSeparator(components[i].back(), syntax) &&
+ (result.empty() || !IsPathSeparator(result.back(), syntax)))
result += GetPreferredPathSeparator(syntax);
----------------
clayborg wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > clayborg wrote:
> > > labath wrote:
> > > > Why is this necessary? `result` can't be empty because we have just
> > > > appended something to it (and we've checked that `components[i]` is
> > > > non-empty).
> > > Because if you don't check this joining {"/', "foo.txt"} will result in
> > > "//foo.txt" which is wrong,.
> > Yes, but didn't the original condition guard against that already?
> >
> > We know that `components[i]` is non-empty, and we have just appended it to
> > `result` two lines above. So, unless I am missing something,
> > `result.back()` should be the same as `components[i].back()` and this
> > additional check does not buy us anything.
> I did not. During testing I found this case and "/" + "main.c" was producing
> "//main.c"
I've just tried calling `join_path_components(ePathSyntaxPosix, {"/",
"main.c"})`, and it produced `/main.c` even without your modifications.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45977
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
