From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18776 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2007 14:02:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 18766 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2007 14:02:14 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gw.sprintaddict.net (HELO champenstudios.com) (80.91.89.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:02:03 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (164.Red-80-36-45.staticIP.rima-tde.net [80.36.45.164]) (authenticated bits=0) by champenstudios.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lBTDq58X029344 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:52:06 +0100 Message-ID: <47765302.3080305@champenstudios.com> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:02:00 -0000 From: Lerele User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: Joel Brobecker , pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PR/2386 [2/2]: MinGW attach to process without an exec file References: <47744F9C.8040604@portugalmail.pt> <20071228013457.GB7602@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <477579E0.5010809@portugalmail.pt> <20071229034228.GB30002@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2007-12/txt/msg00454.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii escribió: >> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:42:28 -0800 >> From: Joel Brobecker >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> >> >>> Then we should document it somewhere, that we don't support >>> Windows 9x anymore. Maybe in the NEWS file ? >>> >> I personally don't mind declaring the end of support for 9x and NT. >> > > I do. Many 3rd-world countries still have lots of users of older > systems, and I don't think we should drop their support as yet. > > Granted, if Cygwin maintainers don't care about older Windows, then the > Cygwin port of GDB doesn't have to, either. But the native MinGW port > does not have to automatically follow that suit, IMO. > > My vote for this one, if it matters. Didn't dare to say it before. Heh. Plenty of users do still use older Windowses. If a developer wants to target a Win9x box he/she needs proper debugging on these, or if a developer is completely hosted on Win9x. Please do keep in mind these cases, at least for MinGW as Eli says. > As I wrote elsewhere, the Windows 9x support in the original patch was > not too hairy, IMO; most of the hair was due to NT support in some > situations which I don't understand yet (see my questions to Pedro). > So perhaps even limiting 9x support is not necessary. > > >> But, >> we don't necessarily have to be that extreme - We could still support >> Windows 9x but with limitations. Being able to attach the debugger >> to a PID without specifying the executable is not a critical feature, >> and if the rest is known to work, it's still a very fine debugger. >> > > I can live with this limitation, provided that: > > . We state it in the manual, and > > . GDB issues a clear error message when asked to attach to a process > by PID alone, and is unable to figure out the executable file name. > > >> BTW: Pedro, thanks very much for your work on the Windows port. >> > > Seconded. > > "Thirded". Quite impressive.