From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16519 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2010 14:29:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 16498 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Feb 2010 14:29:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:29:09 +0000 Received: (qmail 24899 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2010 14:29:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 28 Feb 2010 14:29:08 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] defs.h: Define GDB_DEFAULT_TARGET_[WIDE_]CHARSET for Cygwin and MingW builds Message-ID: <20100228142905.GB1556@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20100228130500.GG5683@calimero.vinschen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100228130500.GG5683@calimero.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00673.txt.bz2 On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 02:05:00PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi, > > today I tested the wide char printing in GDB for the furst time on a > Cygwin build and it didn't work well. The reson was that the default > for GDB_DEFAULT_TARGET_WIDE_CHARSET is UTF-32, which is bad for a system > defining wchar_t to be UTF-16. That's Windows for you. > > So I applied the below patch, which makes GDB for Cygwin happy. I also > set the GDB_DEFAULT_TARGET_CHARSET for Cygwin and Win32 to a more sane > default for both systems. > > > Ok to apply? No, this isn't right. __CYGWIN__ and _WIN32 are host checks, and these charsets are target properties. So this will not have the desired effect. Hmm, does this mean these macros should become gdbarch properties? That could be awkward in practice. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery