From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20685 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2007 17:27:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 20677 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jul 2007 17:27:00 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:26:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD5AF2A9CBC; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:26:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id xvY9CkAo-1KX; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:26:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF142A9C91; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:26:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EBEB0E7B54; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:27:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] DLL support for gdbserver Message-ID: <20070704172912.GC6035@adacore.com> References: <20070702221129.GD32495@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070702221129.GD32495@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 > Here's a final version of gdbserver support for Windows DLLs. > It works for me testing with Cygwin. Pedro, would you like to test > this on Windows CE to see what I've broken? Looks like we're very close to have DLL support with gdbserver. Should we delay the branch to try to get this in, or is the change considered a bit risky? I feel like 6.7 will be packed with new features no matter what, but this would probably be nice to have regardless of that. -- Joel