From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18311 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2006 00:12:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 18303 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2006 00:12:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:12:52 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D08048CBEB; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:12:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 03841-01-4; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:12:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A6AA48CBD9; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:12:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 99D4B47E7E; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:12:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: bob@brasko.net, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror Message-ID: <20060209001245.GA1140@adacore.com> 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> <20060208211349.GH3975@brasko.net> <200602082316.k18NG28Q031774@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200602082316.k18NG28Q031774@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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/msg00195.txt.bz2 > I always understood having two different versions of a DLL with the > same name as being the "DLL hell" problem. Am I wrong? I can't > believe that in the last 10 years that people have been talking about > this problem, MicroSoft didn't come up with a solution for it. And > even if they didn't, the solution is simple: just ship the Cygwin > DLL's under a different name. Or just link the Cygwin code > statically. Or is that impossible on Windows? I honestly think it's impossible with the current design of cygwin. The problem is that you can only have one cygwin library at a time mapped in the system. No amount of renaming will let you workaround that issue. So as soon as you build GDB against cygwin, you run into a distribution problem that cannot be fixed. We've tried. Believe, we've tried very hard to come with a satisfactory solution that involves cygwin. Cygwin provides a really nice environment, and many engineers here use it heavily. But it comes with its own tradeoffs, and some of them made us decide to try to go back to MinGW. I therefore support, for the little it is worth, Daniel's efforts into contributing their patches. -- Joel