From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9051 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2006 00:08:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 9042 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Feb 2006 00:08:58 -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; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:08:57 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F6ctD-0001KH-Nm for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:08:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:08:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror Message-ID: <20060208000855.GA5040@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060203215455.GA3501@nevyn.them.org> <20060206173550.GB22947@nevyn.them.org> <200602062254.k16MsagK009925@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060206225829.GA31895@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060206225829.GA31895@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00159.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 05:58:29PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Could you explain why you don't like this one a little more clearly? > > Of course it'd be possible to write a complete replacement; I'd just > replace the call to the system strerror with a switch statement and > copy the strings out of the system runtime, or out of some other > standard source. But I don't see why that's any better than this, and > it's gratuituous duplication of information, so I'd like to understand > what you dislike about it. > > If it's the #define strerror that you dislike, two comments: > > - I could put an #ifdef around the one and only call to strerror > instead, in utils.c. I'd be perfectly happy with that. > > - I can't override the system strerror by defining my own copy; that > would be prone to breakage due to the workings of > __attribute__((dllimport)). I discussed that with Chris before posting > this version. Hi Mark, Have you had a chance to think about this? I realize it's only been a day, but I'm trying not to let these patches linger too long. I'd really like to understand what folks dislike about this patch, so that I can improve it. Same for the other patch; I replied to you about select. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery