PR/2386 [2/2]: MinGW attach to process without an exec file
Sat Dec 29 14:02:00 GMT 2007
Eli Zaretskii escribiÃ³:
>> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:42:28 -0800
>> From: Joel Brobecker <email@example.com>
>> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> Then we should document it somewhere, that we don't support
>>> Windows 9x anymore. Maybe in the NEWS file ?
>> I personally don't mind declaring the end of support for 9x and NT.
> I do. Many 3rd-world countries still have lots of users of older
> systems, and I don't think we should drop their support as yet.
> Granted, if Cygwin maintainers don't care about older Windows, then the
> Cygwin port of GDB doesn't have to, either. But the native MinGW port
> does not have to automatically follow that suit, IMO.
My vote for this one, if it matters. Didn't dare to say it before. Heh.
Plenty of users do still use older Windowses.
If a developer wants to target a Win9x box he/she needs proper debugging
on these, or if a developer is completely hosted on Win9x.
Please do keep in mind these cases, at least for MinGW as Eli says.
> As I wrote elsewhere, the Windows 9x support in the original patch was
> not too hairy, IMO; most of the hair was due to NT support in some
> situations which I don't understand yet (see my questions to Pedro).
> So perhaps even limiting 9x support is not necessary.
>> we don't necessarily have to be that extreme - We could still support
>> Windows 9x but with limitations. Being able to attach the debugger
>> to a PID without specifying the executable is not a critical feature,
>> and if the rest is known to work, it's still a very fine debugger.
> I can live with this limitation, provided that:
> . We state it in the manual, and
> . GDB issues a clear error message when asked to attach to a process
> by PID alone, and is unable to figure out the executable file name.
>> BTW: Pedro, thanks very much for your work on the Windows port.
More information about the Gdb-patches