Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror

Eli Zaretskii
2006-02-05T04:48:08Z

> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 19:27:10 -0500
> From: Christopher Faylor <me@cgf.cx>
>
> >Then perhaps we should create a new -nat.c file, say mingw-nat.c, and
> >maintain it separately. (For that matter, I'd really love to see
> >win32-nat.c be renamed to cygwin-nat.c, since that's what it really is
> >going to be.) If neither Daniel nor Mark M. can afford becoming
> >responsible maintainers for such a new native file, I volunteer to do
> >my best to do that.
> >
> >Would you agree to such a solution?
>
> That is *exactly* what I expected to come out of this discussion. And,
> I suspect that it won't just be win32-nat.c which will have to be changed.
> There will be a header file or two, and probably some configuration magic.

Whatever it takes, yes.

> And, really, it is a bad design decision to have two different files
> using the same debugging mechanism. If this was to be done right then
> win32-nat.c should somehow be factored out further so that the common
> bits can be shared. Cygwin and MinGW are alike enough that they should
> share code.

That would be going back to where you don't want to: to a maintenance
burden on you, due to sharing code with MinGW.

> I think Ulrich's point was that wasting time tinkering with code to make
> it work better with non-POSIX platforms was counter-productive for
> projects which are designed to run on same.

I think Ulrich's point was that it would be waste of Ulrich's time to
do what Ulrich doesn't want to do.