From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1567 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2006 21:12:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 1558 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Feb 2006 21:12:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao04.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao04.cox.net) (68.230.240.35) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:12:54 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060208211254.EYZK19943.eastrmmtao04.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:12:54 -0500 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52) id 1F6wdJ-0006HZ-Qp; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:13:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:12:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Mark Kettenis Cc: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror Message-ID: <20060208211349.GH3975@brasko.net> References: <20060203215455.GA3501@nevyn.them.org> <20060206173550.GB22947@nevyn.them.org> <200602062254.k16MsagK009925@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060206225829.GA31895@nevyn.them.org> <20060208000855.GA5040@nevyn.them.org> <200602082107.k18L7xRh013417@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200602082107.k18L7xRh013417@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i 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/msg00188.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:07:59PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:08:55 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > 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. > > I really think that we should drop MinGW support, and that the people > who want GDB on windows should work on fixing the apparent problems > with Cygwin. I cannot image that Cygwin is unique in having "DLL > hell" problem. People certainly must have found a proper solution for > this by now. When I say that there is not a nice way to deliver a Cygwin1.dll, I mean it. It's not a dll hell problem. If anyone can say that this is not true, please let me know. I'm dieing to hear the answer. You simply can not have 2 Cygwin1.dll's on the same system and there is no way that I can see to prevent it from happening. Bob Rossi