From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19249 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2006 08:01:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 19236 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Dec 2006 08:01:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 09 Dec 2006 08:01:04 +0000 Received: (qmail 18266 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2006 08:01:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 9 Dec 2006 08:01:02 -0000 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] win32-nat.c: Simplify generation of Windows environment References: <20061207095839.GA14487@calimero.vinschen.de> From: Jim Blandy Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 08:01:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:31:36 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00138.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> From: Jim Blandy >> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:10:14 -0800 >> >> $ cd gdb/config >> $ grep -nH -e win32-nat */*.m? >> i386/cygwin.mh:2:NATDEPFILES= i386-nat.o win32-nat.o corelow.o >> $ >> >> I think that means it's just Cygwin. > > No, it just means that the native W32 build is currently not part of > the CVS. > > A large portion of win32-nat.c is relevant to any native Windows > debugger. By contrast, cygwin_internal is obviously Cygwin-specific. > So I think it would be a good practice to mark such specific portions > of code explicitly. Given what I've read so far, I don't agree. In general, for the intents and purposes of the Project GNU debugger, win32-nat.c is Cygwin-specific. If someone is maintaining out-of-tree W32 patches, then it is up to them to amend those patches to add the sort of #ifdefs you suggest. It's not reasonable to expect contributors to the the public GDB sources to anticipate and accomodate the needs of code they can't see. But that's "in general". If there's a further story here that can be told where some minor effort on our part will make it easier for someone to participate and contribute to GDB, then I think folks here are pretty friendly and would be willing to listen.