This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Unbuffer stdout and stderr on windows
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: yao at codesourcery dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, brobecker at adacore dot com
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:57:52 +0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unbuffer stdout and stderr on windows
- References: <51EE23F8 dot 1070905 at codesourcery dot com> <83wqohw4ee dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20130729192559 dot GA5348 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <83d2q1xiyv dot fsf at gnu dot org> <51F6C7B2 dot 3020400 at redhat dot com> <20130731034045 dot GA5565 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <20130812211105 dot GA11128 at adacore dot com> <8361v9piop dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20130815173618 dot GA6955 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <83eh9uonlg dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20130815175940 dot GD6955 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <520E1109 dot 7000304 at redhat dot com> <520E1C34 dot 2000907 at codesourcery dot com> <520E2B13 dot 8020706 at redhat dot com> <83r4dtn35q dot fsf at gnu dot org> <520E357E dot 6080803 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:21:50 +0100
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> CC: yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com
>
> On 08/16/2013 03:03 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> > I suggest not to broaden the issue beyond the original problem, lest
> > we will be unable to solve it.
>
> Nobody's doing that. What I'm saying is that the testsuite is not
> special, and we should _zone in_ to the real problem, and fix it
> completely.
A complete solution, if it exists, might require much more effort,
which is IMO unjustified in the absence of complaints.
> What will probably happen with that solution is that Windows GDB
> clients will end up using the special testsuite-only flag too,
> because by default, GDB will remain broken...
I use the Emacs client all the time, and I don't think it's broken.
> Why add a flag for a half-fix instead of fixing the issue
> completely?
I fear that we don't know/understand enough to do TRT for the complete
solution. The "half-fix", OTOH, solves a well-defined issue that is
understood very well.