From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 999 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2004 15:05:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 896 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2004 15:05:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Sep 2004 15:05:44 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8OF5Rr3026381 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:05:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8OF5Pr00435; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:05:25 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EFCC28D2; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4154372C.7080100@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:05:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz , Joel Brobecker , Eli Zaretskii Cc: Michael Chastain , me@cgf.cx, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Suggested ways to remove the need for xm-go32.h References: <01c49d82$Blat.v2.2.2$23875ec0@zahav.net.il> <20040923050534.GA11936@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <41526D73.nailWK21NVX4@mindspring.com> <20040923151802.GC968@gnat.com> <20040923175721.GA30999@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040923175721.GA30999@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00403.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:18:02AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > >>>> > I don't think that "rb" versus "r" can be autoconf'ed. The gdb >>>> > configure script would need to execute a host program to figure out >>>> > whether "rb" is supported or not, and that won't work if build != host. >>>> > Or maybe I'm wrong about that and there's some way to do it. >> >>> >>> I must say I am not convinced that it is such a good idea to support >>> that setup. I wouldn't bother about this until somebody has a real >>> interest in that support, and then can step up and maintain it. >>> In the meantime, we're just letting the best be the enemy of good, and >>> as a consequence have to find elaborate solutions to problems made more >>> complex by this requirement. Intellectually rewarding, but slows down >>> development. Yes, definitly. We've no evidence that we've a real problem here, and hence no evidence that a wrapper is needed. All I see a dig achieving is to flush out legacy systems on which GDB no longer builds. If someone with such a legacy system really really needs a modern GDB then I'm sure that they'll step up to the challenge of solving this and many other problem. Lets base this decision on what is, what not might once have been. And lets resist the temptation to add wrapper runtime checks that we can't even test (as in with a full working GDB). > For the previous question of testing, I don't think it's a worthwhile > requirement; however, it's a very important requirement for build time. > I build with --build != --host routinely. So do a lot of Cygwin folks, > I think. You'll need to be more specific. Which build, which host. Presumably these are all modern hosts and support "rb". Andrew