This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Your patch from 20050512 b0rked on cygwin!
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- Cc: dave dot korn at artimi dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, me at cgf dot cx
- Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:23:30 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Your patch from 20050512 b0rked on cygwin!
- References: <SERRANO0MTavL7tofgt000000d1@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <200508171907.j7HJ7Gq8024834@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
Dave, is Cygwin really still broken? I never saw a followup to this.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 09:07:16PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
> > Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:39:05 +0100
> >
> > [Please keep me in the Cc: line, as I don't subscribe to gdb-patches]
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > Your patch to unconditionally include shared library code:
> >
> > Original patch -
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2005-05/msg00043.html
> > Respin that went in -
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2005-05/msg00198.html
> >
> > ... appears to have borked cygwin. No criticism of yourself should be read
> > into this fact: you did appeal for cygwin testing, and nobody stepped up to
> > the plate, so I'm as much to mea culpa as anybody.
>
> Sorry 'bout that.
[snip; see the archives]
> > So I would appreciate a bit of review (and preferably from someone who
> > knows better than me what's going on in this corner of the world!).
>
> Ideally, the cygwin shared library code would be converted to use the
> solib.c mechanism. However, that's a bit more work, so I can image
> we'd want this "quick" fix in first. But Chris Faylor is the
> maintainer of this code, so you'll need his approval.
Copying Chris, in case he didn't see the original.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC