From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67106 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2015 18:55:03 -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 65680 invoked by uid 89); 26 Feb 2015 18:55:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout26.012.net.il Received: from mtaout26.012.net.il (HELO mtaout26.012.net.il) (80.179.55.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:55:01 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout26.012.net.il by mtaout26.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NKE008006UYPV00@mtaout26.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 20:55:20 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout26.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NKE00OWZ7883C90@mtaout26.012.net.il>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 20:55:20 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:55:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable building GDB without installed libtermcap In-reply-to: <54EF69A5.3020902@redhat.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com, vapier@gentoo.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83a9005wq5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <54EB4FDF.1060909@redhat.com> <54EB513A.8050706@redhat.com> <54EF5C56.9010101@redhat.com> <83bnkg5z9q.fsf@gnu.org> <54EF69A5.3020902@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00782.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:44:53 +0000 > From: Pedro Alves > CC: bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com, > vapier@gentoo.org > > > Which version of GCC is the minimal one we want to support? > > Hard to say at this point. I'd hope we'd move to requiring > something more recent than 3.4.x. From past discussions, I was > assuming we'd start by requiring 4.2 at least when finally require > C++. I don't have that. Someone should check if it supports this attribute. > Given that this stub file never needed these variables while it was > Windows-only, how about we simply not define the variables if > compiling for mingw/cygwin, but define them as weak everywhere else? Works for me, thanks.