From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3138 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2006 09:18:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 3129 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2006 09:18:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.202) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:18:48 +0000 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so120680nzd for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:18:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.251.46 with SMTP id y46mr6355781nzh; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:18:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.2.63 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 01:18:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8f2776cb0602090118x2fff4051y197eabc13d1f2c58@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:18:00 -0000 From: Jim Blandy To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, bob@brasko.net, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060203215455.GA3501@nevyn.them.org> <20060206173550.GB22947@nevyn.them.org> <200602062254.k16MsagK009925@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060206225829.GA31895@nevyn.them.org> <20060208000855.GA5040@nevyn.them.org> <200602082107.k18L7xRh013417@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060208211349.GH3975@brasko.net> <200602082316.k18NG28Q031774@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060209001245.GA1140@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 On 2/8/06, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:12:45 -0800 > > From: Joel Brobecker > > Cc: bob@brasko.net, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > I therefore support, for the little it is worth, Daniel's efforts > > into contributing their patches. > > IMHO, it's worth a lot. > > Mark, I think you should reconsider your ideological antagonism, if > indeed there is one, for haveing MinGW code in GDB. If you still > think MinGW support should be dropped, please start another thread (I > suggest on gdb@) for discussing that. I'd like to second Eli's thoughts here. I think it's clearly in GDB's interests to insist that the interface between GDB's core code and host-specific code be clean and well-defined. Eli's suggestion that we use global function pointers that the host-specific file can override suits me fine; I prefer it to header files defining macros, for reasons I've explained. But if the interfaces are simple enough, I don't think we have reason to reject ports to other platforms.