From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6521 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2006 01:54:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 6378 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2006 01:54:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao06.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao06.cox.net) (68.230.240.33) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:54:10 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060209015411.ELES9108.eastrmmtao06.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:54:11 -0500 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52) id 1F711V-0007Ja-VG; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:55:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:54:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Mark Kettenis , drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror Message-ID: <20060209015505.GJ3975@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> <20060208211349.GH3975@brasko.net> <200602082316.k18NG28Q031774@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060209001245.GA1140@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060209001245.GA1140@adacore.com> 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/msg00199.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 04:12:45PM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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? > > We've tried. Believe, we've tried very hard to come with a satisfactory > solution that involves cygwin. Yes, I know. (http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2005-03/msg00700.html) I had to literally edit the GDB binary to get it to run on my window's machine because I use Cygwin for other reasons. If you didn't rename the DLL to something of the same char length, it probably would have been impossible. Please see this thread I started about mismatched dll's and a possible solution (towards the end). http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-02/msg00077.html Very sorry to post this info here, however, I think it's related to the discussion of only shipping GDB with Cygwin. Cygwin does have at least this one *very major* limitation. With that said, I won't bring this up again here. Bob Rossi