From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1153 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2006 10:03:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 1144 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Feb 2006 10:03:38 -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 10:03:37 +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 HTR10313; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:03:32 +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 CPY29131 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:03:31 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:03:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060203233935.GA13238@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> (message from Christopher Faylor on Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:39:35 -0500) 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> <20060203233935.GA13238@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> 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/msg00059.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:39:35 -0500 > From: Christopher Faylor > > The gist of the email is that I'm not happy having to support > windows-specific workarounds in gdb while standing on my head in > cygwin-land to make sure that as few workarounds as possible are needed > for programs like gdb. Why do you guys always start important arguments while I'm asleep? ;-) > I'm concerned that the MinGW patches are going to eventually start > encroaching on win32-nat.c (which we've already seen). I don't *want* > to litter that file with any special non-cygwin accommodations. Then perhaps we should create a new -nat.c file, say mingw-nat.c, and maintain it separately. (For that matter, I'd really love to see win32-nat.c be renamed to cygwin-nat.c, since that's what it really is going to be.) If neither Daniel nor Mark M. can afford becoming responsible maintainers for such a new native file, I volunteer to do my best to do that. Would you agree to such a solution? > So, I'm not sure what to do here. I agree with Mark, though (and with > Ulrich Drepper when he made points about non-POSIX systems in his blog). I suggest we don't go there, and don't start arguing about Ulrich's points (which I personally find deeply flawed). We don't need to agree on ideology, as long as we find a good way of cooperating towards common goals, a way that leaves everybody reasonably happy. After all, even I could drink beer with Ulrich when we met in Japan, although our email relationship--how should I put it?--leaves a lot to be desired ;-)