From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11753 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2006 08:00:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 11745 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2006 08:00:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 08:00:58 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1F76jX-0006eR-I8; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 03:00:55 -0500 To: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <200602082310.k18NAQNe027038@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (message from Mark Kettenis on Thu, 9 Feb 2006 00:10:26 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii 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> <200602082310.k18NAQNe027038@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 08:00:00 -0000 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/msg00205.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 00:10:26 +0100 (CET) > From: Mark Kettenis > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > but if we don't [drop the attempt to support MinGW], 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. Can you state what are your expectations from such a ``as small as possible'' impact? That is, what are the do's and dont's which, if satisfied, will cause you to endorse the MinGW support? I think, if Daniel is about to rewrite his patches yet another time, he deserves to know the rules of the game in advance. For example, here's a suggestion for what I think is more seamless integration of MinGW and other ``illegal aliens'', here for the `select' issue: int gdb_select (...) { if (select_hook) return (*select_hook) (...); else return select (...); } We make `select_hook' a global pointer to a function, and then MinGW can define its own emulation on win32-something.c and plug its address into `select_hook'. An advantage of this method is that the name of the-evil-whatever thingy is never even mentioned. Would this method be okay with you? For that matter, does anyone else object to this?