From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13368 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2006 10:20:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 13360 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Feb 2006 10:20:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gandalf.inter.net.il (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:20:41 +0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) with ESMTP id HTS00727; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:19:25 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-205-46.inter.net.il [83.130.205.46]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CPY31884 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:19:23 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:20:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Jim Blandy CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <8f2776cb0602031706s55e09abfr4354becf8278921c@mail.gmail.com> (message from Jim Blandy on Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:06:11 -0800) Subject: Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060203215455.GA3501@nevyn.them.org> <200602032325.k13NPJ6g028001@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <8f2776cb0602031706s55e09abfr4354becf8278921c@mail.gmail.com> 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/msg00060.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:06:11 -0800 > From: Jim Blandy > Cc: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > If we had safe_strerror try a macro which the nm-*.h file could > define, I'd feel better about the change. Which to me sounds strange: when Mark M. suggested his original patch for the event loop, I asked for the Windows specific parts to be put in win32-nat.c, instead of littering a system-independent file. However, no one supported me in that request then, AFAIR. Would people who argue for cleansing GDB sources of non-Posix filth please take a good look at event-loop.c? If we agree to having that code there, I don't see how we can possibly lecture Daniel about keeping system-dependent stuff out. We need to be consistent about our standards. (For the record, in that past discussion about gdb_select I mentioned above, Daniel argued for having the code in event-loop.c, so Daniel _is_ consistent about _his_ standards.)