From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1987 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2007 14:35:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 1979 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2007 14:35:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (HELO fk-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.128.189) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:35:27 +0000 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 26so5011939fkx.8 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:35:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.146.11 with SMTP id t11mr12854374hud.2.1198938924796; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:35:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?78.130.87.130? ( [78.130.87.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f7sm10716190nfh.25.2007.12.29.06.35.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:35:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47765B26.5020808@portugalmail.pt> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:07:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; pt-BR; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, bodzio131@op.pl Subject: Re: PR/2386 [1/2]: MinGW attach to process without an exec file References: <47744F79.5020706@portugalmail.pt> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00458.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:20:57 +0000 >> From: Pedro Alves >> CC: Bogdan Slusarczyk >> >> (*-*-mingw* | *-*-cygwin*): Set gdb_osabi to GDB_OSABI_CYGWIN. > > Is this really right? Unless I'm missing something, GDB_OSABI_CYGWIN > is not the native Windows ABI, is it? > There is no Cygwin ABI, to the best of my knowledge, since Cygwin is a library that sits on top of Windows, it follows the Windows ABI. When MinGW support was introduced, I didn't rename that. I haven't found a reason to split Cygwin|MinGW at this level. I was avoiding rename-only patches, in a rename-as-I-touch mode. -- Pedro Alves