From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7911 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2006 02:01:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 7679 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Feb 2006 02:01:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 02:01:17 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F5ZDG-0006o2-LN for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:01:14 -0500 Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 02:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror Message-ID: <20060205020114.GA25947@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060203215455.GA3501@nevyn.them.org> <200602032325.k13NPJ6g028001@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060203233935.GA13238@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20060205002710.GC8728@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060205002710.GC8728@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 07:27:10PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 12:03:38PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >Then perhaps we should create a new -nat.c file, say mingw-nat.c, and > >maintain it separately. (For that matter, I'd really love to see > >win32-nat.c be renamed to cygwin-nat.c, since that's what it really is > >going to be.) If neither Daniel nor Mark M. can afford becoming > >responsible maintainers for such a new native file, I volunteer to do > >my best to do that. > > > >Would you agree to such a solution? > > That is *exactly* what I expected to come out of this discussion. And, > I suspect that it won't just be win32-nat.c which will have to be changed. > There will be a header file or two, and probably some configuration magic. > > And, really, it is a bad design decision to have two different files > using the same debugging mechanism. If this was to be done right then > win32-nat.c should somehow be factored out further so that the common > bits can be shared. Cygwin and MinGW are alike enough that they should > share code. > > However, that is, again, not something that I have any interest in doing. > This is a personal preference and I'm afraid that it is very unlikely that > anyone is going to convince me otherwise. Wouldn't dream of trying. I think that mingw32 hosting support and mingw32 native support can be treated separately; do you disagree? I'm not actually interested in adding the latter, not at the moment anyway, and neither are you; if someone becomes interested, we can hold them to an appropriately high standard of separation from Cygwin support. My only interest is in cross debuggers (mostly ARM and PPC at the moment) hosted on MinGW32. So you've already seen most of what I expect to do. I'll plan to rename ser-windows.c to something less ambiguous; and since there was a clear reaction that the call to FormatMessage doesn't belong in utils.c, I'm going to put that in a new file too (I am considering "mingw32-hdep.c"). We can include that in Windows support, or separate the two, whichever you'd prefer. In case it isn't clear, one of my foremost goals here is to prevent maintenance burden: on the one hand, for my employer, and on the other hand, for the GDB community. Both hands are important to me, but it's not easy to balance them. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery