From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id WMG5IkfPdmfgCQEAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 02 Jan 2025 12:39:19 -0500 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gnu.org header.i=@gnu.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=Cf0ssfHV; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 89E4B1E097; Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:39:19 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1554C1E05C for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:39:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953593858C56 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:39:18 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 953593858C56 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=gnu.org header.i=@gnu.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=Cf0ssfHV Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B91843858D3C for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:38:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org B91843858D3C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gnu.org ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org B91843858D3C Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=2001:470:142:3::10 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1735839499; cv=none; b=lh+Ru7d/sfEqd7d6DtMTkKaICpbhsX7Av7gc64hPV2LHPS2bev/P6AwFoEDN6DSB5zlHq5w5FL4xBSig3nwmyi4FN2Lujw8F/JnaAJLzhkjongA2gZguTFuJ/RqS9MsMCN5d0NBgqKtoWlT5w6otzYI84R/WAme8mMGjsPTWvU8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1735839499; c=relaxed/simple; bh=iib8Yb8xADm9nwZzqZqSbfGYyyu7eLFoFfM3QMrVivg=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:Message-Id:From:To:Subject:MIME-version; b=X8VOmrInNK9f0V8cbM+X2fLr8gFuJfoXqT3izS7ZFDIHe3mTuELHz/boMRjy43BFJQ2pMOVrh2vbnM8d5Es01HXnvmdgKDNazAOsHpc0mPchQlOS+QrS2Q7CNfLpnEnnMsfewgaUHqrhNMjtWlHVZa4PjDGDTzH8tpAFdkGumhM= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B91843858D3C Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tTP9H-0000GV-0c; Thu, 02 Jan 2025 12:38:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=VFEnXlI/SNRfHq7hyJFiEix0ku9peOU0oDrIXE5qQKw=; b=Cf0ssfHVXSyRQne9ygN/ aUTynm1ZV7ZwvupjGsGsu3wAKwcnqgxasKSsZMir6YBVWKkxJu+hBctQy3zaCrSnIMnBLG7cUKvw3 JbKSns8MCwF2iweEFYc6d9FHdtkQ+hOIzwCm3OnAVX9V/pYxmvqGDxN4NBbKAgNk8eI6EKq6BFeQI up2H3khQWgy/3hqBEJQUV0GjkhOjtqbvBlO5iN5Ecq5lEQGuZPwmj3g14RC+tBZBvt/jfRsW1IoAQ 8Z3YEUDXPsbG9iD9CLOy6R84Y1f5mLIZbny9meGIRe5GHL7xynR6cyVgx0rc/XpXTGJRtRpuohNbG h0BVqLqm5ROjDg==; Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 19:38:16 +0200 Message-Id: <865xmxjeuv.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: brobecker@adacore.com, Tom Tromey Cc: ssbssa@yahoo.de, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <86zfkepkqh.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Sun, 29 Dec 2024 17:33:26 +0200) Subject: Re: GDB 16.0.90 available for testing References: <20241229033130.D7F7F803EA@takamaka.gnat.com> <868qryr6nn.fsf@gnu.org> <745538212.4148266.1735485100440@mail.yahoo.com> <86zfkepkqh.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org > Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 17:33:26 +0200 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 15:11:40 +0000 (UTC) > > From: Hannes Domani > > Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" > > > > Am Sonntag, 29. Dezember 2024 um 13:55:25 MEZ hat Eli Zaretskii Folgendes geschrieben: > > > > > 1. A compilation error in readline/input.c, due to lack of 'alarm' > > > function.  I have reported that several months ago to the upstream > > > Readline developers, but the solution they installed only works for > > > MinGW64.  For mingw.org we need the following patch: > > > > > > --- readline/readline/input.c~0    2024-12-29 04:50:07.000000000 +0200 > > > +++ readline/readline/input.c    2024-12-29 12:32:04.196630800 +0200 > > > @@ -151,6 +151,14 @@ win32_isatty (int fd) > > > #  define RL_TIMEOUT_USE_SELECT > > > #else > > > #  define RL_TIMEOUT_USE_SIGALRM > > > +#  ifdef __MINGW32_MAJOR_VERSION > > > +/* mingw.org's MinGW doesn't have 'alarm'.  */ > > > +unsigned int > > > +alarm (unsigned int seconds) > > > +{ > > > +  return 0; > > > +} > > > +#  endif > > > #endif > > > > > > int rl_set_timeout (unsigned int, unsigned int); > > > > I wonder why readline doesn't disable the whole stuff where alarm is used > > on windows, since it doesn't work there anyways. > > Chet said that's what he did, but I saw no evidence of that in the > current Readline (assuming I was looking at the correct branch in the > Git repository). See > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2024-12/msg00003.html Given what Chet says in https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2024-12/msg00006.html I now understand how this is fixed in upstream Readline. The fix there is not right: it will fail the MinGW64 build. So I'd like to fix this properly in our repository and tell Chet how I recommend to fix it upstream. Should I fix this in our repository right away, or would you prefer to wait for Chet to agree with my proposal, so that we have the same code as in upstream Readline?