From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id uD9sAqxSdGDaEgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:01:16 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 027131F104; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:01:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D23D1E54D for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA272388A410; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:01:14 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BA272388A410 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1618236074; bh=jCVU6ov0hQjDxXksauSNItH6jkkFWrlQ0gJNSGqOWyc=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=RJwHdNZRFKtWpaDNFjiVthtrQyRZCoTk8vcMSZdiIEYQtSIGnCm9lcXtTKbMS0Ke6 NqqofxYd5q3NFxpYpQs5ry/8oFVCuMOxwtSrdfv+WgSiutxSQgqlAW37VJEGCUGeq3 uiMRbu/o2X+FKEz1R186DU2GN0mox9vY/tezRCYQ= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 309E5388A410 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:01:12 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 309E5388A410 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 13CE169x019570 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:01:10 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 13CE169x019570 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E0981E54D; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:01:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb, gdbserver: remove WinCE support code To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210410231021.1232451-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> Message-ID: <19a7df6c-614b-94c4-f8c3-1889a1f00199@polymtl.ca> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:01:05 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:01:06 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-04-12 9:57 a.m., Luis Machado wrote:> On 4/10/21 8:10 PM, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote: >> The support for WinCE was removed with commit 84b300de3666 ("gdbserver: >> remove support for ARM/WinCE"). There is some leftover code for WinCE >> support, guarded by the _WIN32_WCE macro, which I didn't know of at the >> time. >> >> I didn't remove the _WIN32_WCE references in the tests, because in >> theory we still support the WinCE architecture in GDB (when debugging >> remotely). So someone could run a test with that (although I'd be >> really surprised). > > Is there value in supporting remote-based debugging of WinCE if we're dropping gdbserver support? Should we also drop the GDB and testing parts given this won't likely be exercised anytime soon if there's no maintainer? I don't think so. After doing that cleanup of stale arches in GDBserver, I wanted to do the same for GDB, but didn't really finish it. Simon