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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

Dave, is Cygwin really still broken?  I never saw a followup to this.

On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 09:07:16PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > 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.

[snip; see the archives]

> >   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.

Copying Chris, in case he didn't see the original.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC