From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] Re: _WIN32? Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 08:45:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010504114417.D17458@redhat.com> References: <20010503211502.21716.qmail@web6401.mail.yahoo.com> <3AF1DAA0.3060702@cygnus.com> <200105040919.FAA27879@delorie.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00067.html On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 05:19:04AM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> 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? You don't necessarily have to test for anything. We could just add a TERMINAL_DOES_BLAH conditional which was set only when gdb was being run under cygwin, or djgpp, or (don't worry we're working on it and will have something in the next <> timeframe, really we will) Windows. You don't actually have to write an autoconf test for this. I suspect that most tests are like this because tests like filename case insensitivity require running a test on the host, which isn't possible in a cross-build environment anyway... as everyone here know... cgf