From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] Re: _WIN32? Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 02:19:00 -0000 Message-id: <200105040919.FAA27879@delorie.com> References: <20010503211502.21716.qmail@web6401.mail.yahoo.com> <3AF1DAA0.3060702@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00065.html > Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 18:24:32 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > I'm actually puzzled. It looks very like someone took a shortcut and, > instead of implementing new methods, just went through and commented out > every call to kill(). cf handle_sigio(). In this case, it might be easier to write a version of kill() that does nothing (e.g., define a macro). > Yes, for the most part I would like to strongly encouraging people doing > WIN32, GO32 and CYGWIN ports to look back over all those #ifdef's and > see if they are better served by an autoconf feature test. Based on my experience, quite a few of them won't be served better by an Autoconf test, because it isn't quite clear what to test. One notable example is the terminal initialization in utils.c:init_page_info--how do you test for something whose effect is on the screen? So I think some of the tests will have to be left alone. It is possible to make them less OS-dependent by defining a set of more portable macros, along the lines of FILENAME_CMP, but the macro definitions will need to be system-dependent (see filenames.h for an example). If it will help, I can prepare a list which describes all uses of these system-dependent fragments in GDB sources with the reasons for each one of them, and publish it here as a base for further discussions. > Per my > earlier e-mail, the obvious oneis to do with how file systems are DOS > file systems are handled and there, I think things are being replaced > with a runtime test. If you mean the FILENAME_CMP and IS_ABSOLUTE_PATH, then these are compile-time tests.