From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from rock.gnat.com (rock.gnat.com [IPv6:2620:20:4000:0:a9e:1ff:fe9b:1d1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C37AC3857007 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 19:25:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org C37AC3857007 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=adacore.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=brobecker@adacore.com Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B5211680B; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 15:25:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at gnat.com 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 9ZSiv3AgVGbY; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 15:25:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0871167AC; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 15:25:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A61EC833B9; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:25:41 -0700 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Christian Biesinger , Tom Tromey , simon.marchi@polymtl.ca, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Building today's snapshot of GDB with MinGW Message-ID: <20200701192541.GC5340@adacore.com> References: <83a70l20dn.fsf@gnu.org> <83wo3ozlvn.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83wo3ozlvn.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 19:25:44 -0000 Hi Eli, > > So reading https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25155, Nick > > mentioned an RFC patch, but I can't tell if that landed. > > Joel, should I install the same libctf patches we had in > gdb-9.1-branch in the current master? Or would you like to talk to > the upstream maintainer first? Would you mind reaching out to Nick and see what he says? From memory, what he said was that he had a patch that did away with using errno values, and that the only blocking point was setting up an environment to be able to reproduce. I felt back then that this was admirable for him to try to achieve that, but on the other hand, I was quite concerned that he was setting the bar to high for himself, and that this would eventually lead to this being dropped on the floor. That why I offered "our" (I mean, "your" ;-)) help to validate his patch. Actually, even if you didn't have the cycles to test it, I think that testing this kind of patch on his usual architectures would have been sufficient. So let's just ask him what he prefers, knowing that we need a solution soon, and that we're happy with using the same hack as on the gdb-9-branch if that reduces the pressure on his end. I can join in the discussion if that helps as well. -- Joel