Re: Likely obsolete pieces of GDB

[Pedro Alves <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 09:41:43PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> I have the WinCE gdbserver port 99% ready for submission.  There are just
>> a few other things I would like to solve first: is the target
>> name that I have been calling arm-wince-mingw32ce at cegcc.sourceforge.net
>> ok, or should I rename it?
> 

> Didn't it used to be just arm-wince?  Anyway, you'd have to ask the
> config-patches list.
> 


It was called arm-wince-pe, but I saw some messages somewhere (I think in
the binutils archive) about how it should have been called arm-wince.  The
original arm-wince(-pe) support was made using MSFT's SDK (headers and libs).
This new arm-wince-mingw32ce is a mingw32 derivative (*);  We use winsup/mingw
and winsup/w32api adapted to wince.  Plus, having mingw32 on the name eases
the porting by a whole bunch, since those "case ${host} in; case mingw*) ;; "
will, in most of the cases, be right for wince too. WinCE is *is* Windows
afterall, a quite broken one, but still...

Thanks for the config-patches list hint.

Cheers,
Pedro Alves

(*) - We never made a push to MinGW upstream, because first we needed to
know if the overlap would justify it, or if we should remain as a fork, and,
we didn't want to bother the busy MinGW folks with a half baked port.