From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20909 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2005 16:08:30 -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 17568 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2005 16:05:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.9) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Apr 2005 16:05:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 30013 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2005 16:05:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?65.78.187.111?) (mitchell@127.0.0.1) by mail.codesourcery.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2005 16:05:11 -0000 Message-ID: <42725B31.4090800@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:23:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: gdb@sourceware.org, paul@codesourcery.com, drow@false.org Subject: Re: Windows support in GDB References: <200504291513.j3TFDhjx021040@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200504291513.j3TFDhjx021040@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00219.txt.bz2 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. I think that characterization was pretty accurate: most of the changes have been to configure bits -- I've littered #ifdef HAVE_FOO around the sources in more places, for the most part. I think that's a pretty minimal intrusion; realistically, there's a lot of that anyhow in GDB, as even the various UNIX variants don't all define the same set of signals, etc. In a couple of cases, stuff has gone into libiberty. The other changes in GDB were the cleanup of ser-unix.c to create ser-base.c (which I think actually made the code cleaner), and the gdb_select function, which has the same API as POSIX. I have no more changes for GDB proper, except a change to safe_strerror that's been rejected. I'll either clean that up in some acceptable way, or abandon it. All I've got left are readline patches. > The problem here is that they mostly concern the > non-POSIX nature of Windows GCC (and the GNU project in general, I think) have taken the attitude that while free operating systems are definitely the primary target, it's OK to support other systems, including Windows, so that people who uses those systems have the benefit of GNU software, and so that they can see that it might be worthwhile switching to a GNU system. Of course, it takes some work to support Windows, but -- thanks to your careful reviews -- the amount of impact on POSIX programmers from my patches is pretty nearly zero. They might break Windows support, but they're not likely to get confused by the Windows bits, becuase they're so clearly segregated. > 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. We have customers that want this functionality. We didn't do this work on spec from a single company; we did it because we have multiple customers who wanted it. We distribute toolchains that use it, and have ongoing contracts to continue delivering such toolchains. We will be including this functionality in our nightly builds, once the FSF version works. I'd also note that there's a very active MinGW community out there. Part of the reason that their GDB support is complete separate is that they've found it hard to get their patches contributed and accepted. I'd expect that once basic support is available, you'd see activity from that direction as well. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC mark@codesourcery.com (916) 791-8304