From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1118 invoked by alias); 30 Dec 2007 04:18:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 1109 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Dec 2007 04:18:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:18:02 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-229-120-75.inter.net.il [84.229.120.75]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id JTG79636 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 30 Dec 2007 06:17:41 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:20:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <4776CDA3.90204@portugalmail.pt> (message from Pedro Alves on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:43:47 +0000) Subject: Re: PR/2386 [2/2]: MinGW attach to process without an exec file Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <47744F9C.8040604@portugalmail.pt> <20071228013457.GB7602@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <477579E0.5010809@portugalmail.pt> <20071229035030.GC30002@adacore.com> <47764306.4060903@portugalmail.pt> <20071229180146.GC24999@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4776CDA3.90204@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: 2007-12/txt/msg00471.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:43:47 +0000 > From: Pedro Alves > > 2 - PSAPI > - Available on NT only, as a seperate dll. Are you sure it isn't available on 9x? I have a copy of a disk from my older 9x machine, and I do see psapi.dll there. > I believe that on > 2000, it comes with one of the service packs. XP, I believe > comes with it. Yes, on my XP machine I see it as well. > In any case, we can put a warning in infcmd.c:attach_command, > when the exec file isn't found, instructing the user to use the > "file" command. Yes, if looking up the exec file fails, please issue a clear message. I also requested for an update of the manual to state the limitations. > > For the Windows 9x case, I'd prefer if there was just a straightforward > > error which indicated that what was being attempted is not available on > > non-NT versions of Windows. > > > > But why? It's not like supporting it in this case is hard. It can be > shoved in 30 lines of code, just getting at toolhelp, and iterating over > all the processes ... Pretty self contained, doesn't impact anything > else. I also think that using ToolHelp32 is an okay solution of this.