From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17340 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2006 21:54:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 17331 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Feb 2006 21:54:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:54:39 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-89-122.inter.net.il [80.230.89.122]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DNK81433 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 8 Feb 2006 23:54:35 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:54:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Mark Kettenis CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <200602082107.k18L7xRh013417@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (message from Mark Kettenis on Wed, 8 Feb 2006 22:07:59 +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> 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/msg00190.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 22:07:59 +0100 (CET) > From: Mark Kettenis > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > I really think that we should drop MinGW support, and that the people > who want GDB on windows should work on fixing the apparent problems > with Cygwin. > [...] > My dislike for this stuff is probably there because where I've been > cleaning out much of the host-specific quirks, this MinGW support > seems to add back a lot special tweaks, and since Windows is so > different from Unix-like systems, there's absolutely no hope, things > can be unified. That, together with the reintroduction of xm.h, seems > like a giant leap backwards to me. I really don't like that xm.h is > back now, since it sets a precedent. People have used these files for > quick hacks in the past, and the new xm.h will make it harder to tell > people that's not acceptable. I think there is a better approach > though. How about having the implementation of safe_strerror() and > gdb_select() in mingw-hdep.c and move the (trivial) existing > implementations of these functions to a new posix-hdep.c? > > Speaking about gdb_select(), a really bad thing about your patch is > that we now have gdb_select(), but that some code still uses select() > and that the difference matters! Mark, can you please make up your mind whether you are talking about coding and design issues, or about ideology? If the problem is xm.h and the select vs gdb_select dichotomy, those are technical problems for which I have no doubt that we will find good solutions. In particular, I firmly believe, based in no small part on my experience of porting GNU software, that your fears of there being ``absolutely no hope'' to have clean sources _and_ MinGW support--that these fears have no real basis, because similar problems were solved elsewhere more than once. But if the problem is that you object in principle to having MinGW support as part of the official codebase, then no amount of coding by Daniel or anyone else will ever get your approval. Which one is it?