From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22827 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2007 04:21:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 22816 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2007 04:20:56 -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; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:20:55 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-240-53.inter.net.il [84.228.240.53]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id GIF65905 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 06:20:48 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:21:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <45FDE45F.2000309@portugalmail.pt> (message from Pedro Alves on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 01:16:15 +0000) Subject: Re: [New WinCE support] [patch 4/4] The bulk of the code. Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20070315235008.243411000@portugalmail.pt> <45F9FC33.9020106@portugalmail.pt> <4053daab0703160803s3edf1294sfcdf4f8319787ab7@mail.gmail.com> <45FDE45F.2000309@portugalmail.pt> 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: 2007-03/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 01:16:15 +0000 > From: Pedro Alves > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Btw, I see in your patch two instances of strwinerror and two places > > that call it: one in gdbreplay.c, the other in utils.c. Why did you > > need two almost identical functions? > > Well, gdbreplay (a separate application) has some other functionality > that is copied from gdbserver instead of sharing objects, > eg: perror_with_name. I didn't think it was worth it to change > how it is built for just one function. Sounds rather unclean to me, but if no one else cares, I won't insist. > They are not identical, because the gdbserver version only > cares about UNICODE (Win32 API on Windows CE is only wide). I saw that (that's why I said ``almost identical''), but the difference is still very minor, so that a version that suits both types of usage could be easily written. > >> The errno values and the windows error codes are not the same. > > > > This is not a problem: errno should not be used with any literal > > values anyway, only with symbolical constants. > > I don't understand what you mean here. I mean that, since WinCE doesn't have errno.h, you could define error symbols such as EINTR and EMFILE as appropriate for values returned by GetLastError. Thanks for the new patch, I'm happy now.