From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32742 invoked by alias); 1 May 2005 20:13:37 -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 32704 invoked from network); 1 May 2005 20:13:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 May 2005 20:13:31 -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 EGS56550 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 1 May 2005 23:12:03 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 20:13:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Mark Mitchell Message-ID: <01c54e89$Blat.v2.4$e3534b20@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: paul@codesourcery.com, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20050429165148.GD12864@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> (message from Christopher Faylor on Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:51:48 -0400) 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> <20050429165148.GD12864@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:51:48 -0400 > From: Christopher Faylor > > >What's the failure mode going to be? If a POSIX person adds a use of > >non-Windows function, without appropriate #ifdef, then the Windows side > >of things will break. At that point, assuming that people are noticing > >(which we will!), we'll fix that. > > I guess the failure mode will be roughly similar to DJGPP. Every time > someone decides that it would be nice to use signal(), select(), fifos, > inodes, unix-domain sockets, or some other non-msdos construct there > will have to be a discussion about how to make things work. But, I > guess we'd already be having this discussion to with DJGPP so maybe it > won't be a big deal. DJGPP has less problems than MinGW because DJGPP is more Posix compliant. E.g., out of the non-msdos constructs you mentioned, DJGPP has `signal', `select', and inodes. But yes, quite a few of Unixish assumptions already bit the dust since the DJGPP port is part of GDB. IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH and similar abstractions come to mind, as does DIRNAME_SEPARATOR. Undoubtedly, this is one reason why the MinGW port additions were relatively minor.