From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16455 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2009 17:36:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 16445 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Oct 2009 17:36:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:36:55 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858592BACB0; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:36:53 -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 ecO1TYA0KDWl; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:36:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266832BACA1; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:36:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0F74AF589F; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:36:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Danny Backx Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches Subject: Re: shared lib dos filename style - one more question Message-ID: <20091009173650.GB5272@adacore.com> References: <1253973110.10921.76.camel@pavilion> <1254946075.10921.178.camel@pavilion> <20091007201145.GA21557@caradoc.them.org> <1255017831.10921.197.camel@pavilion> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1255017831.10921.197.camel@pavilion> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00194.txt.bz2 > I'm sure that any effects of discouragement at my end are not the > intention of this message :-) This just shows how important it is to agree on user-level design before digging into the implementation - when you can of course. Not saying that you didn't! I actually missed that discussion. Would you mind maybe explain again what it is that you're trying to achieve and what has been said on the subject? I promise I will read through it and try to give you my answers to your questions. -- Joel