From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19425 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2007 10:47:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 19417 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Feb 2007 10:47:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elrond.portugalmail.pt (HELO elrond.portugalmail.pt) (195.245.179.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:46:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elrond.portugalmail.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0643236CD8 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:46:54 +0000 (WET) Received: from elrond.portugalmail.pt ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (elrond.portugalmail.pt [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sfX1Zg9aX0SE for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:46:53 +0000 (WET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (62.169.106.241.rev.optimus.pt [62.169.106.241]) (Authenticated sender: pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt) by elrond.portugalmail.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F6836CD0 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:46:49 +0000 (WET) Message-ID: <45D82E95.1090401@portugalmail.pt> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:25:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; pt-BR; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061207 Thunderbird/1.5.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Likely obsolete pieces of GDB References: <20061216205923.GA21428@nevyn.them.org> <20061216212254.GA14335@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <45CE3C17.8080802@portugalmail.pt> <20070210235023.GA4959@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20070210235023.GA4959@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000714-3, 18-02-2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00190.txt.bz2 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.