Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/06/30/13:35:35
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 09:33:31AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:53:52 -0400
>> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>>
>> Since Cygwin is supposed to emulate UNIX, there shouldn't be much
>> difference between the way UNIX does it and the way Cygwin does it.
>
>If you can do that without losing features, then it's of course okay.
>But losing features in the name of greater Unix compatibility is IMHO
>a grave mistake.
Who's talking about "losing features"?
>It will prevent many Windows users from using Cygwin tools as a
>development platform for Windows programs. Likewise, waiting
>indefinitely for the ``right'' solution to surface and in the meantime
>rejecting a less ``right'' but nevertheless clean solution, is also a
>mistake.
Perhaps. However, implementing this the UNIX way should be relatively
trivial. It at least deserves study before we throw in the towel. This
is consistent with the way gdb is managed. We don't just accept patches
from someone because they aren't sure how to do it the accepted way and
say "Oh well, this is as good as it is going to get."
It's my job as a maintainer to ensure that the code that is added to
win32-nat.c is... maintainable. IMO, it will be a lot more
maintainable if new code is not inventing new ways of doing things,
ignoring established gdb practices.
I really regret not suggesting that the original poster explore the
"follow fork" solution. I also forgot to preload the expectation that
an assignment form was necessary. That was probably discouraging.
>However, this is not something to be discussed on the GDB list.
I don't see why not. We're talking about gdb.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -