Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror

Eli Zaretskii
2006-02-08T21:54:41Z

> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 22:07:59 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> I really think that we should drop MinGW support, and that the people
> who want GDB on windows should work on fixing the apparent problems
> with Cygwin.
> [...]
> My dislike for this stuff is probably there because where I've been
> cleaning out much of the host-specific quirks, this MinGW support
> seems to add back a lot special tweaks, and since Windows is so
> different from Unix-like systems, there's absolutely no hope, things
> can be unified. That, together with the reintroduction of xm.h, seems
> like a giant leap backwards to me. I really don't like that xm.h is
> back now, since it sets a precedent. People have used these files for
> quick hacks in the past, and the new xm.h will make it harder to tell
> people that's not acceptable. I think there is a better approach
> though. How about having the implementation of safe_strerror() and
> gdb_select() in mingw-hdep.c and move the (trivial) existing
> implementations of these functions to a new posix-hdep.c?
>
> Speaking about gdb_select(), a really bad thing about your patch is
> that we now have gdb_select(), but that some code still uses select()
> and that the difference matters!

Mark, can you please make up your mind whether you are talking about
coding and design issues, or about ideology? If the problem is xm.h
and the select vs gdb_select dichotomy, those are technical problems
for which I have no doubt that we will find good solutions. In
particular, I firmly believe, based in no small part on my experience
of porting GNU software, that your fears of there being ``absolutely
no hope'' to have clean sources _and_ MinGW support--that these fears
have no real basis, because similar problems were solved elsewhere
more than once.

But if the problem is that you object in principle to having MinGW
support as part of the official codebase, then no amount of coding by
Daniel or anyone else will ever get your approval.

Which one is it?