From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-40304-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 31819 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2005 03:23:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 31810 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jul 2005 03:23:01 -0000
Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 03:23:01 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-202-194.inter.net.il [83.130.202.194])
	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR)
	with ESMTP id BWI31970 (AUTH halo1);
	Mon, 18 Jul 2005 06:22:47 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 03:23:00 -0000
Message-Id: <ur7dwkdbr.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, chet.ramey@case.edu
In-reply-to: <42DAF4FE.3060609@codesourcery.com> (message from Mark Mitchell
	on Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:17:02 -0700)
Subject: Re: Guidance re. MinGW and readline
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References:  <42DAF4FE.3060609@codesourcery.com>
X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00142.txt.bz2

> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:17:02 -0700
> From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
> CC: chet.ramey@case.edu
> 
> (1) Wait for readline-5.1 to be released, incorporate it into src/, and 
> then to add the minimal termcap stuff to a file in gdb/ that is only 
> used on MinGW.
> 
> (2) I backport Chet's changes to rltty.c to the src/readline/ 
> sourcebase, and then proceed as above.  Because we know that these 
> changes will be in readline-5.1, we needn't worry overmuch about 
> divergence from upstread sources.
> 
> I'd prefer the second path, even though it's more work for me, in that 
> it would hopefully result in more quickly reaching the state where all 
> of the MinGW support is in the FSF GDB.  However, if the GDB maintainers 
> don't want to go that route, I'll just wait.  I'd very much appreciate 
> advice from the GDB maintainers about which path to take.

If you can afford the additional effort, go the second path.

Thanks.