This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: MinGW build of GDB 8.2.90
> From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
> Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:55:27 -0500
>
> However, and more importantly, I remember testing the whole patch by
> compiling it using a mingw32 compiler on Fedora, and it was working
> correctly. In fact, we even have a mingw32 builder on our BuildBot
> (running on Fedora), and it is still compiling GDB without problems:
>
> https://gdb-build.sergiodj.net/builders/Fedora-x86_64-w64-mingw32
>
> So apparently this error is only triggered when you use mingw on
> Windows...? I don't know.
No, the problem is that there are two flavors of MinGW, and I used the
other one.
> As I said, I don't use Windows and don't understand the system, but if
> these changes fix the problem for you, I'd say they're justified and
> should be pushed (even though I don't understand the "if
> _WIN32_WINNT..." part).
For the record, the _WIN32_WINNT part is because mingw.org's MinGW by
default defines _WIN32_WINNT to target older versions of Windows,
which don't support getaddrinfo, and the Windows API headers then mask
the prototypes of those functions.
> > Note that one other side effect of the IPv6 support additions is that
> > on MS-Windows GDB will no longer run on versions older than XP, I
> > guess this is something that should be mentioned in NEWS?
>
> I confess I did not know that. If that's the case, then we should
> indeed notify the users via the NEWS file, IMO.
OK, will do.
> > CXX xml-syscall.o
> > xml-syscall.c: In function 'bool xml_list_syscalls_by_group(gdbarch*, const char*, std::vector<int>*)':
> > xml-syscall.c:475:14: warning: types may not be defined in a for-range-declaration
> > for (const struct syscall_desc *sysdesc : groupdesc->syscalls)
> > ^~~~~~
> >
> > I solved the latter by removing "struct" from the declaration. This
> > is with GCC 6.3.0; is that a GCC bug? is removing "struct" the right
> > solution?
>
> Yeah, this is the right thing to do. I remember having to do this a few
> times, and seeing other patches doing the same.
OK, will do that as well.
Thanks for the feedback.