From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32763 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2005 15:15:33 -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 32349 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2005 15:15:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Apr 2005 15:15:10 -0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j3TFDi2g029463; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:13:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3TFDhWo013724; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:13:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j3TFDhjx021040; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:13:43 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:32:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200504291513.j3TFDhjx021040@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: gdb@sourceware.org CC: mark@codesourcery.com, paul@codesourcery.com, drow@false.org Subject: Windows support in GDB X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00215.txt.bz2 Guys, I'm getting a bit of an uneasy feeling here. It may be that I'm getting the wrong impression here, but I've seen quite a bit more Windows-related patches than I had in mind when Mark started submitted his first patches and said they were fairly limited and mostly some configure bits. The problem here is that they mostly concern the non-POSIX nature of Windows, which sets its quit far apart from the traditional Unix-like systems that have been converging towards POSIX for quite some time now. This means that we really need to have some commitment from the Windows user community for maintaining this stuff. Otherwise this will become another MetroWerks disaster. It's fairly obvious that this development is coming from CodeSourcery. There's nothing wrong with that, but I'd like to ask CodeSourcery what their commitment to maintaining this new code is. In the past we have seen quite a few contributions from embedded sofware companies. In many cases these contributions were apparently done as contract work, and after the work was completed the code was never touched again. Can CodeSourcery gives some clarification on this matter? Mark