MinGW - Minimalist GNU for Windows

On Nov 28, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Eran Ifrah wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I implemented my own UI for my IDE using GDB MI interface.

What a coincidence, i'm doing the same thing there.

> However, I found some differences between the breakpoint placements  
> which forces me to to use the CLI break command when it comes to  
> placing breakpoints.
> The main difference, is when placing a breakpoint inside DLL while  
> the application not started, but 'set breakpoint pending on' is set.
> When using the CLI command 'break <file:line>, i get the message:
>
> No source file named <file>.
> Breakpoint X <file>:line pending.
>
> And the breakpoint does hit.
>
> But when setting a breakpoint inside a DLL (loaded with  
> LoadLibrary()) using the -break-insert command I just get the message
> No source file named <file>.
>
> and of course the breakpoint never hit.

I've had this problem too for as long as i can remember (i use the CLI  
break in my debugger front end too).  I filed a bug in the GDB tracker  
here:

http://tinyurl.com/2tpdww

Please add a note to that bug if you don't mind.

In the interim, i've come up with a workaround for core problem this  
issue causes which has its own added benefits, email me privately if  
you're interested.



Brandon Sneed

Hi,
I know we have patched versions of gcc and g++ (version 3.4.5) that work 
with Vista available at (eg) 
http://dessent.net/tmp/gcc-vista-3.4.5-20060117-1.tar.gz .

Do we yet have a patched version of g77 that works with Vista ?

Cheers,
Rob

Sisyphus wrote:

> I know we have patched versions of gcc and g++ (version 3.4.5) that work
> with Vista available at (eg)
> http://dessent.net/tmp/gcc-vista-3.4.5-20060117-1.tar.gz .
> 
> Do we yet have a patched version of g77 that works with Vista ?

The fix to cope with Vista's _access() is in mingw-runtime and has been
there for some time.  The only change to gcc is to rebuild it with the
new mingw-runtime and with __USE_MINGW_ACCESS defined, so I don't see
what's stopping anyone interested from doing this.  It's not like
anything has actually changed in gcc.

Brian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Dessent" <brian@...>
To: "MinGW Users List" <mingw-users@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] g77 for Windows Vista.


> Sisyphus wrote:
>
>> I know we have patched versions of gcc and g++ (version 3.4.5) that work
>> with Vista available at (eg)
>> http://dessent.net/tmp/gcc-vista-3.4.5-20060117-1.tar.gz .
>>
>> Do we yet have a patched version of g77 that works with Vista ?
>
> The fix to cope with Vista's _access() is in mingw-runtime and has been
> there for some time.  The only change to gcc is to rebuild it with the
> new mingw-runtime and with __USE_MINGW_ACCESS defined, so I don't see
> what's stopping anyone interested from doing this.  It's not like
> anything has actually changed in gcc.
>

You're telling me that I (currently) have to build it from source, right ?
That is, unlike gcc and g++, there's currently no Vista binary available for 
g77 ?

That's fair enough .... I mean, I don't know how to build g77 from source 
... but that's *my* problem, and I certainly have no expectations that 
others should (or will) cater to my own personal failings.

But I *will* continue to ask (politely) about this from time to time - 
unless, of course, such behaviour is deemed unacceptable. (I do subscribe to 
this list, but it's always possible that I've missed an announcement.)

Cheers,
Rob

Sisyphus wrote:

> You're telling me that I (currently) have to build it from source, right ?
> That is, unlike gcc and g++, there's currently no Vista binary available for
> g77 ?

I'm saying that someone -- perhaps you, perhaps someone else -- simply
needs to rebuild gcc.  What I was trying to convey is that the work is
already done to fix the bug, and in fact the fix is not gcc-specific at
all but applies to any application that tries to use _access() with
X_OK, a bitvalue that has been deprecated for some time and MS just got
around to removing it finally.  There could be other apps lurking out
there that use this idiom and thus the workaround code is in
mingw-runtime.

> That's fair enough .... I mean, I don't know how to build g77 from source
> ... but that's *my* problem, and I certainly have no expectations that
> others should (or will) cater to my own personal failings.
> 
> But I *will* continue to ask (politely) about this from time to time -
> unless, of course, such behaviour is deemed unacceptable. (I do subscribe to
> this list, but it's always possible that I've missed an announcement.)

That's a fair complaint.  And in fact we should not have this "special
vista version of gcc" business, in an ideal world we'd just respin the
gcc packages and bump the release number, and then there would be no
more confusion.  But as with all open source volunteer projects, nothing
happens without motivation from someone to do it, and if Danny is short
on time or busy with other projects or whatever then so be it; that's
his choice.

Brian