From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26048 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2006 14:44:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 25998 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2006 14:44:13 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (HELO smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl) (194.109.24.32) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:44:11 +0000 Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl (dovemail6.xs4all.nl [194.109.26.8]) by smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k19Ei7d4045109; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:44:07 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl) Received: from 192.87.1.22 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sibelius) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:44:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <15661.192.87.1.22.1139496247.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: References: <20060203215455.GA3501@nevyn.them.org> <20060206173550.GB22947@nevyn.them.org> <200602062254.k16MsagK009925@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060206225829.GA31895@nevyn.them.org> <20060208000855.GA5040@nevyn.them.org> <200602082107.k18L7xRh013417@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200602082310.k18NAQNe027038@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:44:00 -0000 Subject: Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror From: "Mark Kettenis" To: "Eli Zaretskii" Cc: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 >> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 00:10:26 +0100 (CET) >> From: Mark Kettenis >> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> >> but if we don't [drop the attempt to support MinGW], I want to make >> sure the MinGW support is integrated in such a way that its impact >> on the rest of the code is as small as possible. > > Can you state what are your expectations from such a ``as small as > possible'' impact? That is, what are the do's and dont's which, if > satisfied, will cause you to endorse the MinGW support? > > I think, if Daniel is about to rewrite his patches yet another time, > he deserves to know the rules of the game in advance. > > For example, here's a suggestion for what I think is more seamless > integration of MinGW and other ``illegal aliens'', here for the > `select' issue: > > int gdb_select (...) > { > if (select_hook) > return (*select_hook) (...); > else > return select (...); > } > > We make `select_hook' a global pointer to a function, and then MinGW > can define its own emulation on win32-something.c and plug its address > into `select_hook'. There is absolutely no reason for this additional complexity. GDB will never be able to run on two different hosts at once. Just having two different implementations and have configure.host choose the apprpriate one will work just fine. Mark