Re: MinGW build of GDB 8.2.90

[Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>]

On Thursday, February 28 2019, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>,  gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:55:27 -0500
>> 
>> However, and more importantly, I remember testing the whole patch by
>> compiling it using a mingw32 compiler on Fedora, and it was working
>> correctly.  In fact, we even have a mingw32 builder on our BuildBot
>> (running on Fedora), and it is still compiling GDB without problems:
>> 
>>   https://gdb-build.sergiodj.net/builders/Fedora-x86_64-w64-mingw32
>> 
>> So apparently this error is only triggered when you use mingw on
>> Windows...?  I don't know.
>
> No, the problem is that there are two flavors of MinGW, and I used the
> other one.

Understood.

>> As I said, I don't use Windows and don't understand the system, but if
>> these changes fix the problem for you, I'd say they're justified and
>> should be pushed (even though I don't understand the "if
>> _WIN32_WINNT..." part).
>
> For the record, the _WIN32_WINNT part is because mingw.org's MinGW by
> default defines _WIN32_WINNT to target older versions of Windows,
> which don't support getaddrinfo, and the Windows API headers then mask
> the prototypes of those functions.

Thanks for the explanation.

>> > Note that one other side effect of the IPv6 support additions is that
>> > on MS-Windows GDB will no longer run on versions older than XP, I
>> > guess this is something that should be mentioned in NEWS?
>> 
>> I confess I did not know that.  If that's the case, then we should
>> indeed notify the users via the NEWS file, IMO.
>
> OK, will do.
>
>> >        CXX    xml-syscall.o
>> >      xml-syscall.c: In function 'bool xml_list_syscalls_by_group(gdbarch*, const char*, std::vector<int>*)':
>> >      xml-syscall.c:475:14: warning: types may not be defined in a for-range-declaration
>> > 	for (const struct syscall_desc *sysdesc : groupdesc->syscalls)
>> > 		   ^~~~~~
>> >
>> > I solved the latter by removing "struct" from the declaration.  This
>> > is with GCC 6.3.0; is that a GCC bug? is removing "struct" the right
>> > solution?
>> 
>> Yeah, this is the right thing to do.  I remember having to do this a few
>> times, and seeing other patches doing the same.
>
> OK, will do that as well.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.

Thank you for taking care of it.

Just as a reminder, these changes need to be pushed to origin/master as
well.

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF  31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/