From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8624 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2013 13:32:04 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 8587 invoked by uid 89); 6 Sep 2013 13:32:04 -0000 Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:32:04 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout23.012.net.il Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MSP00K00HE2C100@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:32:01 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MSP00KT1HLCBH20@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:32:01 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:32:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Trust readonly sections if target has memory protection In-reply-to: <20130906130332.GE3001@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <8361uem5yv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1378432920-7731-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <83txhymr02.fsf@gnu.org> <522990FF.30608@codesourcery.com> <83mwnqmj8f.fsf@gnu.org> <20130906130332.GE3001@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00230.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 06:03:32 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > MinGW doesn't support Windows 3.x, and I think Cygwin doesn't support > > 9x anymore. > > IMO, XP is probably the most ancient version that would be reasonable > to support. Are people still developping on more ancient versions? If we support XP, extending support to Windows 2000 or even NT 4.0 comes almost at no cost. IMO, there's no need to drop support for platforms whose support doesn't impose any tangible maintenance headaches. Windows 9X can be easily recognized at run time, and the feature that is the subject of this thread can be turned off then.