From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-35981-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 20910 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2004 21:16:58 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 20899 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2004 21:16:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cgf.cx) (66.30.17.189)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Sep 2004 21:16:58 -0000
Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201)
	id 9DAE51B3D6; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:19:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:16:00 -0000
From: Christopher Faylor <me@cgf.cx>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Suggested ways to remove the need for xm-go32.h
Message-ID: <20040924211905.GY674@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <01c49d82$Blat.v2.2.2$23875ec0@zahav.net.il> <20040923050534.GA11936@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <200409232058.i8NKwHg4009186@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20040923211643.GA22829@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <01c4a223$Blat.v2.2.2$e47a6c80@zahav.net.il> <20040924122406.GA10888@cygbert.vinschen.de> <jeoejvkcve.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20040924195330.GT674@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040924195330.GT674@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00419.txt.bz2

On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 03:53:30PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 03:36:21PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com> writes:
>>>That's nothing GDB should be concerned of, probably, but that's
>>>definitely a leak in the definitions.  How much sense does it make to
>>>allow "b" in fopen but no equivalent in the low-level interface :-(
>>
>>Doing the text conversion on the low level creates a heap of problems
>>with POSIX semantics.  The stdio level is much better suited for this
>>task.
>
>Yeah, but it makes things pretty tough for a system that has to support
>tough, like what happens when you do an fdopen on a file that has been
>open()ed with O_TEXT and then do an 'fseek'?
>
>I truly all of this binary/text stuff.  I wish Cygwin had never tried to
        ^
      detest
>continue to advance the distinction.