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: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: brobecker at adacore 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, 13 Apr 2015 18:27:49 +0300
- 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> <83h9tbr09w dot fsf at gnu dot org> <552BDCDB dot 9080708 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:12:27 +0100
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> CC: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com,
> fercerpav@gmail.com
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree you have a point here. It's hard to write a rule about this,
> because I think it'll depend on the importance of the feature, and
> the how much maintenance would keeping the fallback code really
> impose.
Yes, I agree with the principle.
> In this case, it should be possible to add IPv6
> support while leaving support for IPv4-only in place without much
> trouble. We can continue discussing which versions of Windows
> we should still support in parallel, but we don't _really_ need to
> be blocked by that. So unless I managed to convince
> you (this time! :-)) that it's OK to blindly (*) drop support for
> ancient Windows versions, we'll revise the patch to keep the support for
> IPv4-only code.
That'd be fine with me, of course.
> (*) - I do think though that if someone actually tries running GDB
> on such older versions, and finds support has been broken for a
> few releases, we should declare such versions unsupported, instead of
> fixing things until they work, because it clearly means that nobody
> has been paying attention already for years.
Unless that person, or someone else, also offers to fix whatever
problems they found, or at least work with us on finding the bug(s), I
think I agree.