This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Add IPv6 support for remote TCP connections
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: palves at redhat dot com, jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, ktietz at redhat dot com, fercerpav at gmail dot com
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:17:47 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add IPv6 support for remote TCP connections
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140209130501 dot GA15183 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <83k3d4utwr dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20140209164748 dot GA25629 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <20140209170821 dot GI2320 at home dot lan> <20150322163922 dot GA31444 at host1 dot jankratochvil dot net> <83sicxrn1b dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20150322170932 dot GA32091 at host1 dot jankratochvil dot net> <83iodssz5g dot fsf at gnu dot org> <5510553F dot 1040203 at redhat dot com> <83k2y7r1xg dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20150323191232 dot GI5438 at adacore dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:12:32 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com, fercerpav@gmail.com
>
> > What about developing on latest versions of Windows, but debugging on
> > Windows 9X? There could be 9X-specific problems that might require
> > that. (I had such an experience with Emacs about 3 years ago, and the
> > person who helped me debug the problem was using GDB 7.2 on a Windows
> > 98 box.)
>
> The problem is whether we have the means to support those older versions.
> I can help with XP, for instance, but not with 98. You also need to have
> people who are publicly committed to helping with the port's maintenance,
> as it's unfair IMO to ask anyone to worry about a platform that only
> affects 0.01%. Thinking from our perspective, we get more bang for our
> buck if we dedicate what resources we have to platforms that have more
> people using them.
Yes, this is all well-known. However, I thought the issue was a bit
different: not whether we want to spend efforts on active support of
these platforms, but rather whether we should try to avoid
deliberately breaking them by introducing features that are not
available there, and leaving no fallbacks for when those new features
are unavailable.