From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21508 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2005 15:32:05 -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 21168 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2005 15:31:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Apr 2005 15:31:46 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DRXT0-0007CM-6D; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:31:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, mark@codesourcery.com, paul@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: Windows support in GDB Message-ID: <20050429153146.GA27362@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sourceware.org, mark@codesourcery.com, paul@codesourcery.com References: <200504291513.j3TFDhjx021040@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200504291513.j3TFDhjx021040@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 Hi Mark, On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 05:13:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > 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 Paul's new patches are issues that we didn't encounter when we built our first generation of Windows toolchains. I apologize for our failures to be perfect and predict the future. What more can you ask of us? By the way, I'd still characterize these patches as fairly limited and mostly configure-related. All the readline patches certainly are, for instance. The SIGTRAP patch makes me a little uncomfortable - and it makes Paul a bit nervous too. That's why it wasn't submitted for mainline. The right fix is to not use host signal numbers in the simulator interface. > 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. I don't know what you're referring to. Are you thinking of the HP merge? > 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? We have a strong push from our customers - not just any one customer - for these features. These are ongoing maintenance contracts and we will be continuing to support it for the foreseeable future. Also, I imagine that once GDB starts to build out of the box on Windows, more and more people will begin to use it there. There's a staggering demand for native Windows-hosted tools. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC