Re: [PATCH] Your patch from 20050512 b0rked on cygwin!

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:39:05 +0100
> 
> [Please keep me in the Cc: line, as I don't subscribe to gdb-patches]
> 
>       Hi Mark,
> 
>   Your patch to unconditionally include shared library code:
> 
> Original patch -
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2005-05/msg00043.html
> Respin that went in -
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2005-05/msg00198.html
> 
> ... appears to have borked cygwin.  No criticism of yourself should be read
> into this fact: you did appeal for cygwin testing, and nobody stepped up to
> the plate, so I'm as much to mea culpa as anybody.

Sorry 'bout that.

>   Anyway, the problem is that win32-nat.c implements its own versions of the
> solib functions, and since your change, there is now a namespace clash over
> solib_address.  I don't know if this is directly because of your patch, or
> some indirect knock-on from multi-arch work that has been ongoing; I think
> it is probably just because solib.o is in the COMMON_OBS now, but I haven't
> actually checked out and built an earlier cvs version to confirm my theory.

No need to check that out.  We need to concentrate on getting this
fixed ;-).

>   The attached patch fixes the problem, at any rate for me.  However:
> 
> a) I haven't done before-and-after testsuite runs yet, because of course
> there was no way to build a 'before' version recently.

No problem.

> b) It may or may not impact MinGW.  I don't use MinGW and don't have an
> install or setup; I don't even know if MinGW can be a native gdb target,
> although I have this vague memory of having read posts here that say it
> doesn't currently support gdb, and I couldn't find it mentioned in
> src/gdb/config/i386/*.  So this might or might not be an issue.

Currently you can only use a MinGW gdb created from official sources
to debug remote targets.  So MinGW isn't an issue here.

> c) I changed a whole bunch of function names that didn't clash.  I find this
> nice and consistent, but others may feel differently about
> aesthetically-pleasing but non-essential changes being applied.

I like consistency ;-).

>   So I would appreciate a bit of review (and preferably from someone who
> knows better than me what's going on in this corner of the world!).

Ideally, the cygwin shared library code would be converted to use the
solib.c mechanism.  However, that's a bit more work, so I can image
we'd want this "quick" fix in first.  But Chris Faylor is the
maintainer of this code, so you'll need his approval.

Mark