From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 348 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2006 20:01:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 335 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Feb 2006 20:00:57 -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; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:00:55 +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 HUD01895; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 22:00:16 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-162-73.inter.net.il [84.228.162.73]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CQD22252 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 5 Feb 2006 22:00:15 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:01:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Jim Blandy CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <8f2776cb0602042339s5f2fa822md543ee05bed367e1@mail.gmail.com> (message from Jim Blandy on Sat, 4 Feb 2006 23:39:17 -0800) 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> <20060205002710.GC8728@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20060205020114.GA25947@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0602042339s5f2fa822md543ee05bed367e1@mail.gmail.com> 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/msg00100.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 23:39:17 -0800 > From: Jim Blandy > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > On 2/4/06, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 21:01:14 -0500 > > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > > > I think that mingw32 hosting support and mingw32 native support can be > > > treated separately; do you disagree? > > > > I do. I think they should be treated together, as having a cross > > debugger that cannot debug natively is kinda silly. > > I don't think it's silly. If you are using Windows as a platform for > cross-development, you may not even have shelled out the bucks for a > native compiler. In that situation, why would it be ridiculous to > have a debugger that, like your compiler, is only useful debugging > programs on your cross target? Reality check: how many other non-embedded platforms have their cross- and native targets separated? > Also, the kinds of things needed to host GDB on a platform are best > kept partitioned away from the stuff needed for doing native target > debugging, simply as a matter of design. It's a simple matter of > separation of concerns. Then please explain why do we compile ser-unix.c with native Unix targets, and ser-go32.c with the DJGPP native target.