From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8875 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2010 15:49:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 8862 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jul 2010 15:49:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 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; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:49:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE662BABA4; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:49:26 -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 3kjiFE+jQu2y; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6442E2BAB2E; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:49:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C90ACF5895; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:49:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, ktietz70@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [RFA/gdb-7.2] Enable leading-mingw64-underscores by default. Message-ID: <20100708154904.GN2595@adacore.com> References: <1278530482-10575-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <83r5je7b0c.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83r5je7b0c.fsf@gnu.org> 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: 2010-07/txt/msg00150.txt.bz2 > Is this a build-time only option? Or can it be toggled at run time? It is build-time only, unfortunately. There was a discussion about that last month, where I was initially confused about the problem: http://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-06/msg00387.html > If the former, I think it is a very bad idea to have the ABI fixed at > build time, because most users of MinGW do not build their own GDB. > At the time when 2 incompatible ABIs coexist, it is very important to > have GDB that could adapt to either. The problem is that I do not know whether we can make it work or not. It's on my agenda of things to do, but right now, and for the next few weeks, that's as much time as I have to help on that topic. Perhaps someone else might want to jump in and help? Kai is the author on the bfd end of things, so perhaps he could change that part so as to make it dynamic, as opposed to static? > If the latter, is this issue documented anywhere (I cannot find it)? > If it is documented, why doesn't this patch include a suitable change > for that documentation? If it isn't, please add it, and please > include in the docs the symptoms of using the wrong ABI, which is when > the user should set this option accordingly. Just so you know, I understand what you are asking and why, but unfortunately, just as above, I do not think I will have the resources to address all that before we get 7.2 out. Someone else will have to step in for the group. -- Joel