Re: [RFC] Suggested ways to remove the need for xm-go32.h

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>]

> The gdb-testers@ group records "somebody tested something and reported
> results in some way".  That's where the "more work for me" comes in:
> devising some standard meta-information for a test run (like a little
> XML file, that's what I use in my test bed), and then augmenting the
> test suite to generate gdb-test-run.xml on every run, and then having
> people mail that in, and then begging more people to report their
> results, and then writing "Terf II" to keep track of it all.

We actually put this sort of information in our own testsuite reports.
I think the only way for you to collect this information is by having
it automatically collected and inserted at the begining of gdb.sum.

> Personally I like wrappers for ease of porting.  It doesn't bug me to
> see gdb_fopen + fopen on the call stack.

And we have plenty of wrappers already (in libiberty for instance).

> I don't think that "rb" versus "r" can be autoconf'ed.  The gdb
> configure script would need to execute a host program to figure out
> whether "rb" is supported or not, and that won't work if build != host.
> Or maybe I'm wrong about that and there's some way to do it.

I must say I am not convinced that it is such a good idea to support
that setup. I wouldn't bother about this until somebody has a real
interest in that support, and then can step up and maintain it.
In the meantime, we're just letting the best be the enemy of good, and
as a consequence have to find elaborate solutions to problems made more
complex by this requirement.  Intellectually rewarding, but slows down
development.

-- 
Joel