This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: one week to gdb-7.6 release?
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, palves at redhat dot com, jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com, ralf dot corsepius at rtems dot org, vapier at gentoo dot org, joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:56:41 +0300
- Subject: Re: one week to gdb-7.6 release?
- References: <20130320160032 dot GC5447 at adacore dot com> <83vc8myoyb dot fsf at gnu dot org> <83ehf64cfs dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20130323162534 dot GI5447 at adacore dot com> <834ng23soj dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20130325151825 dot GJ5447 at adacore dot com> <83k3ov1mo0 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20130325162524 dot GK5447 at adacore dot com> <20130329015924 dot GA14360 at adacore dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:59:24 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, palves@redhat.com,
> jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, ralf.corsepius@rtems.org,
> vapier@gentoo.org, joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com
>
> > > The
> > > code in main.c already does
> > >
> > > #ifdef __MINGW32__
> > > /* On Windows, argv[0] is not necessarily set to absolute form when
> > > GDB is found along PATH, without which relocation doesn't work. */
> > > gdb_program_name = windows_get_absolute_argv0 (argv[0]);
> > > #else
> > > gdb_program_name = xstrdup (argv[0]);
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > Is moving that to posix-hdep.c just to avoid an ifdef?
> >
> > The main purpose is to move the code away out of windows-nat, which
> > is only linked in native debuggers, not cross ones - so that building
> > a cross debugger hosted on Windows will work again. Basically, your
> > new function is really only dependent on the host, whereas the -nat
> > file makes the assumption that host & target are Windows.
>
> I have added this item to the TODO list for the 7.6 release, so as not
> to forget.
Thanks.
> I was wondering if this discussion was stalled, or if it was just
> a matter of not finding the time to do the implementation.
The latter.
> I could possibly take care of it tomorrow if you'd like.
If you have time, it's fine with me. Failing that, I will submit the
changes in a few days.