From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9324 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2007 11:41:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 9315 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2007 11:41:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:41:12 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-229-120-75.inter.net.il [84.229.120.75]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id IRM36497 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:38:36 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:47:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20071229034228.GB30002@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:42:28 -0800) Subject: Re: PR/2386 [2/2]: MinGW attach to process without an exec file Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <47744F9C.8040604@portugalmail.pt> <20071228013457.GB7602@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <477579E0.5010809@portugalmail.pt> <20071229034228.GB30002@adacore.com> 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: 2007-12/txt/msg00450.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:42:28 -0800 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Then we should document it somewhere, that we don't support > > Windows 9x anymore. Maybe in the NEWS file ? > > I personally don't mind declaring the end of support for 9x and NT. I do. Many 3rd-world countries still have lots of users of older systems, and I don't think we should drop their support as yet. Granted, if Cygwin maintainers don't care about older Windows, then the Cygwin port of GDB doesn't have to, either. But the native MinGW port does not have to automatically follow that suit, IMO. As I wrote elsewhere, the Windows 9x support in the original patch was not too hairy, IMO; most of the hair was due to NT support in some situations which I don't understand yet (see my questions to Pedro). So perhaps even limiting 9x support is not necessary. > But, > we don't necessarily have to be that extreme - We could still support > Windows 9x but with limitations. Being able to attach the debugger > to a PID without specifying the executable is not a critical feature, > and if the rest is known to work, it's still a very fine debugger. I can live with this limitation, provided that: . We state it in the manual, and . GDB issues a clear error message when asked to attach to a process by PID alone, and is unable to figure out the executable file name. > BTW: Pedro, thanks very much for your work on the Windows port. Seconded.