From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13069 invoked by alias); 1 May 2005 19:50:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13041 invoked from network); 1 May 2005 19:50:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 May 2005 19:50:16 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-80-230-71-109.inter.net.il [80.230.71.109]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id EGS51907 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 1 May 2005 22:48:25 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 19:50:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Mark Mitchell Message-ID: <01c54e86$Blat.v2.4$95fe91c0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: me@cgf.cx, paul@codesourcery.com, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <42726437.9050208@codesourcery.com> (message from Mark Mitchell on Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:43:35 -0700) Subject: Re: Windows support in GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200504291513.j3TFDhjx021040@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20050429153146.GA27362@nevyn.them.org> <20050429160040.GH10017@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <42725D6A.7040103@codesourcery.com> <20050429162732.GA12864@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <42726437.9050208@codesourcery.com> X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:43:35 -0700 > From: Mark Mitchell > CC: paul@codesourcery.com, gdb@sourceware.org > > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > However, now that the patches are finally here, I have to say that I > > sort of share Mark K's concerns. I'm wondering if we are on a slippery > > slope and (to mix a metaphor) will be subjecting gdb to a > > death-by-inches as we slowly add ifdefs throughout the configury and > > code. > > I think it's a funny time to get concerned -- we're done. :-) There are > no more cuts coming, so as long as we're not bleeding to death yet, > we're not going to die. Plenty of GNU software has similar patches to > support running on MinGW. GDB itself already has 2500 lines of code in > win32-nat.c, some of which I would imagine is rather more opaque to > POSIX programmers than anything we've added. > > We made these changes with no algorithmic modifications to GDB, no > perversions of its core design, etc. FWIW, I agree with Mark M. here: the changes added to support MinGW were minimal, almost unnoticed in the sources. > I certainly don't think the entire codebase will be littered with > HANDLEs and ReadFileEx, or transformed into a multi-threaded application > with a Windows event loop in the middle of it, or anything like that. Perhaps we should have a mingw.c file to hide any such code, should there be a need in the future. Not that I see a need for that now, except maybe to put there the gdb_select emulation.