This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] compile: rm -rf -> ftw()+rmdir()+unlink() [Re: [patch] compile: Fix MinGW build]
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Kai Tietz <ktietz at redhat dot com>
- Cc: jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com, sellcey at imgtec dot com, brobecker at adacore dot com, yao at codesourcery dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 22:47:01 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] compile: rm -rf -> ftw()+rmdir()+unlink() [Re: [patch] compile: Fix MinGW build]
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141217210144 dot GA26674 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <83wq5oub28 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20141218173103 dot GA18871 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <83sigcua9l dot fsf at gnu dot org> <526566540 dot 670835 dot 1418933688966 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:14:48 -0500 (EST)
> From: Kai Tietz <ktietz@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>, sellcey@imgtec.com,
> brobecker@adacore.com, yao@codesourcery.com,
> gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> > > >From the Fedora point of view MinGW64 32-bit mode seems to be a superset
> > > >of
> > > MinGW32 so why to care about MinGW32 anymore? Or what do I miss?
> >
> > That _I_ use MinGW32?
>
> That is actually your problem, isn't it?
I don't see it as a problem, necessarily.
> The mingw-w64 target support ftw, so why not simply allow it for targets providing it, and other targets can be covered by gnulib?
Sure, why not? I wasn't objecting to that, I just provided
information, since Jan seemed to think ftw is available everywhere.
> What libraries "mingw-w64" breaks often?!? Could you please go in detail? I am curious to hear that, as all distributors I know (Fedora, Debian, OpenSuse, ArchLinux, ...) haven't reported this. Or is that just one thing you have a "gut" feeling about?
The latest that I saw is this:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2014-12/msg00186.html
And I remember a few more lately.
But look, I don't want to argue, I specifically said that. Jan asked
why not forget about MinGW32, and I gave _my_ reasons. You don't have
to agree, and we don't have to convince each other. My only request
is that GDB doesn't drop MinGW32 support.
> Just one point here I got curious about. What you mean by ABI? The ABI of mingw-targets is the same for all targets using gcc. So what ABI-differences you are talking about?!?
Exception handling across DLLs is one difference I know of.
> > Even if there were no problems with MinGW64, I don't think we should
> > stop supporting MinGW32 just like that, it is still a live project,
> > and I, for one, is quite happy with it. I hope GDB will not drop its
> > support any time soon.
>
> No problem about this, but why blocking things not related to MinGW.org?
I didn't, it's a misunderstanding. Sorry if I caused it.