[PATCH] Various Windows support changes

[PATCH] Various Windows support changes

[Keith Rollin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 443 bytes --]

Hello,

These patches add some features and fix some bugs in gdb when running under Windows.  The enclosed archive the following files requested by the gdb CONTRIBUTING file:

   CHANGES: a description of the changes provided by the patch
   ChangeLog: a detailed list of changes in ChangeLog format
   gdb-6.0.diff: the patch

-- Keith Rollin
-- Development Tools engineer
-- PalmSource, Inc.
 <<palmsource-gdb-6.0-patches.tgz>> 

[-- Attachment #2: palmsource-gdb-6.0-patches.tgz --]
[-- Type: application/x-compressed, Size: 6283 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] Various Windows support changes

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 04:37:00PM -0700, Keith Rollin wrote:
>Hello,
>
>These patches add some features and fix some bugs in gdb when running under Windows.  The enclosed archive the following files requested by the gdb CONTRIBUTING file:
>
>   CHANGES: a description of the changes provided by the patch
>   ChangeLog: a detailed list of changes in ChangeLog format
>   gdb-6.0.diff: the patch

There is a lot of good work here and most of it looks worthwhile.

A few points:

1) It is a fairly large patch involving a few distinct fixes.
   It is much easier to review and install one patch which addresses
   one problem than it is to review one gigantic patch which addresses
   n problems.  Would you consider sending this as multiple patches?

2) Please don't send compressed patches here.  Just send your patch
   and ChangeLog as plain text.

3) Please send patches against CVS rather than a gdb release.
   Patches generated against CVS are more likely to apply cleanly.
   As it turns out, your patch installed ok with the exception of
   your change to version.in.  However, it is always a little more
   comforting to see a patch apply without the fuzz and offset warnings
   from patch.

4) It doesn't look like Palm has an assignment with the FSF.
   Jim?  Can you send him an assignment form?

5) The ChangeLog is a little non-standard.
   Please use capitalization and present tense, i.e., "Add TEMP and TMP" rather
   than "added TEMP and TEMP".

I do appreciate all of the work that went into this patch.  The only
real stumbling block here is the lack of an FSF assignment.

cgf

Re: [PATCH] Various Windows support changes

[Keith Rollin]

Christopher,

Thanks for the reply.  My responses are below:

At 12:35 PM -0400 4/20/04, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>1) It is a fairly large patch involving a few distinct fixes.
>    It is much easier to review and install one patch which addresses
>    one problem than it is to review one gigantic patch which addresses
>    n problems.  Would you consider sending this as multiple patches?

I remember reading that recommendation in the CONTRIBUTE document, 
but it wasn't clear to me how to provide multiple patches.  I don't 
know how to create them -- how do I separate my changes?

>2) Please don't send compressed patches here.  Just send your patch
>    and ChangeLog as plain text.

OK.  The CONTRIBUTE document said "We accept patches as ... gzipped 
text", so I thought what I did was OK.

>3) Please send patches against CVS rather than a gdb release.
>    Patches generated against CVS are more likely to apply cleanly.
>    As it turns out, your patch installed ok with the exception of
>    your change to version.in.  However, it is always a little more
>    comforting to see a patch apply without the fuzz and offset warnings
>    from patch.

I was leery of sending in patches against gdb 6.0, especially when 
6.1 had just been released.  However, I've never used CVS, and so 
don't know how to perform what you ask.  If needed, of course, I 
could learn.

>4) It doesn't look like Palm has an assignment with the FSF.
>    Jim?  Can you send him an assignment form?

The CONTRIBUTE document said that I could get a form from some cited 
web site, but I was unable to actually find the form.  In lieu of 
that, the CONTRIBUTE document said that such a form was not necessary 
for small fixes, for which I'd hoped my changes qualified.  If not, 
I'll look for Jim to send me an assignment form.

>5) The ChangeLog is a little non-standard.
>    Please use capitalization and present tense, i.e., "Add TEMP and 
>TMP" rather
>    than "added TEMP and TEMP".

Thanks.  I'll keep that in mind.

>I do appreciate all of the work that went into this patch.  The only
>real stumbling block here is the lack of an FSF assignment.

At this point, it's not clear to me if your points above are advice 
for any subsequent submissions, or if I need to address them for this 
submission.  You noted that you'd already applied the patch, so I'm 
thinking the former.  But if the latter, then let me know and I'll 
tweak things.

In either case, I'll look for the assignment for to arrive and get it 
back to you.  I'll assume that instructions on what to do with the 
form after I'm done with it will come with the form.

-- Keith Rollin
-- Development Tools engineer

Re: [PATCH] Various Windows support changes (assignment needed)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 01:43:18PM -0700, Keith Rollin wrote:
>At 12:35 PM -0400 4/20/04, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>1) It is a fairly large patch involving a few distinct fixes.
>>   It is much easier to review and install one patch which addresses
>>   one problem than it is to review one gigantic patch which addresses
>>   n problems.  Would you consider sending this as multiple patches?
>
>I remember reading that recommendation in the CONTRIBUTE document, 
>but it wasn't clear to me how to provide multiple patches.  I don't 
>know how to create them -- how do I separate my changes?

Techniques vary.  I guess you could, one at a time, edit the patch file,
apply it to a vanilla source for verification, and then submit the
patch.  That's what I do when I have a small patch that I want to
submit from a much larger change.

>>2) Please don't send compressed patches here.  Just send your patch
>>   and ChangeLog as plain text.
>
>OK.  The CONTRIBUTE document said "We accept patches as ... gzipped 
>text", so I thought what I did was OK.

This is the third option provided.  The preferred method is plain text.
It makes things much easier for a patch reviewer since you don't
have to take an extra step.  It should also make things easier
for a patch submitter since *they* don't have to take a separate
step but some mailers (notably Windows mailers) like to munge newlines
in patches.  Regardless, it still pays (IMO) to submit your patches
in clear text.  I think you'll see that this is the case for the
majority of the patches here.

>>3) Please send patches against CVS rather than a gdb release.
>>   Patches generated against CVS are more likely to apply cleanly.
>>   As it turns out, your patch installed ok with the exception of
>>   your change to version.in.  However, it is always a little more
>>   comforting to see a patch apply without the fuzz and offset warnings
>>   from patch.
>
>I was leery of sending in patches against gdb 6.0, especially when 
>6.1 had just been released.  However, I've never used CVS, and so 
>don't know how to perform what you ask.  If needed, of course, I 
>could learn.

It's not an absolute requirement for this set of patches.  It's just
a nice to have.

>>I do appreciate all of the work that went into this patch.  The only
>>real stumbling block here is the lack of an FSF assignment.
>
>At this point, it's not clear to me if your points above are advice 
>for any subsequent submissions, or if I need to address them for this 
>submission.  You noted that you'd already applied the patch, so I'm 
>thinking the former.

I just applied the patch to my local sandbox to see if there were
problems applying the patch.  I haven't evaluated it in any way other
than that.

My preference would be for you to 1) get the assignment and then 2)
start submitting small patches + ChangeLog here against CVS.  I can
move pretty quickly when there are individual nuggets to consider but
if I have to break up the patch myself and puzzle over it, it will
take more time.  I will eventually get to it but it will just take
longer.

Anyway, 1) is an absolute requirement.  These changes are too large to
be included without an assignment.  2) is just a nice to have.  If
you would prefer to just break up the patches but avoid CVS then
that's ok, too.  Or, if you want to just avoid this part entirely
then you'll have to be patient for me to find a block of time to
deal with your whole patch.

Thanks again for taking the time to both fix the problems you found
and submit them here.  I hope you will continue to improve the
windows version of gdb.

cgf

Re: [PATCH] Various Windows support changes (assignment needed)

[Keith Rollin]

At 5:24 PM -0400 4/21/04, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>My preference would be for you to 1) get the assignment and then 2)
>start submitting small patches + ChangeLog here against CVS.  I can
>move pretty quickly when there are individual nuggets to consider but
>if I have to break up the patch myself and puzzle over it, it will
>take more time.  I will eventually get to it but it will just take
>longer.
>
>Anyway, 1) is an absolute requirement.  These changes are too large to
>be included without an assignment.  2) is just a nice to have.  If
>you would prefer to just break up the patches but avoid CVS then
>that's ok, too.  Or, if you want to just avoid this part entirely
>then you'll have to be patient for me to find a block of time to
>deal with your whole patch.
>
>Thanks again for taking the time to both fix the problems you found
>and submit them here.  I hope you will continue to improve the
>windows version of gdb.

Christopher,

The second step is done and waiting.  I've broken up the patch into 
seven smaller ones (which, ironically, no longer apply cleanly 
because different patches patch adjoining lines), applied the patches 
against the CVS sources as of last Friday, and even fixed a bug in my 
changes.  However, I've yet to receive the assignment form from Jim, 
and I can't find a copy on the Web anywhere.  I think I'm supposed to 
receive a copy of request-assign.changes, but everything I've seen 
tells me that only project maintainers have access to it.

-- Keith Rollin
-- Development Tools engineer
-- PalmSource, Inc.