Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-02-08T23:22:19Z

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:10:26AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> I'd rather see us drop the attempt to support MinGW, but if we don't I
> want to make sure the MinGW support is integrated in such a way that
> its impact on the rest of the code is as small as possible.

Will you be satisfied with the changes you've described? I am
completely wiling to work on the technical issues, but if you remain
antagonistic to the very concept, then I'm wasting my time. Again.
For the sixth or seventh time.

We need to decide this now. I, and I think Mark Mitchell also, are
heartily sick of contributing these patches, spending days revising
them to satisfy other developers, and then being told the port
shouldn't exist at all. There's a flamewar every time we post one;
that's mighty good incentive to leave the port broken.

I still don't understand your objections, but I definitely understand
your alternative:

> 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. I cannot image that Cygwin is unique in having "DLL
> hell" problem. People certainly must have found a proper solution for
> this by now.

This is taking some work you don't like, by some other people, and
telling them to go do something vastly harder and more fragile instead.
And just because you can't imagine that the Cygwin situation is unique
doesn't mean that it is not; in fact, I'm fairly convinced that it is.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery