From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Using GDB in NTEMACS Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:48:34 +0200 Message-ID: <8582-Fri22Feb2002224834+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <3C6CDC0F.ECB82017@is.elta.co.il> <3C6F2F5F.DCBC0805@is.elta.co.il> <5l4rketmyq.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu> <3C71EC79.7EE4D14C@is.elta.co.il> <5leljhsfuf.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5lg03xqm84.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5lbselqjav.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu> <3C73260B.C9111ECB@is.elta.co.il> <5l3czwqj3m.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu> <3C73D10E.A08C2504@is.elta.co.il> <5lofijq13j.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu> <87pu2zlppc.fsf@charter.net> <3C748F5B.6F50B5EF@is.elta.co.il> <874rkbxpar.fsf@charter.net> <3C74E05D.781AD1E0@is.elta.co.il> <5ly9hlo1ue.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu> <6137-Fri22Feb2002210032+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <200202221937.g1MJbNw31079@rum.cs.yale.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1014411192 16457 195.204.10.66 (22 Feb 2002 20:53:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Feb 2002 20:53:12 GMT Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby2.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16eMgp-0004HK-00 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 21:53:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16eMf8-0006qa-00; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:51:26 -0500 Original-Received: from heimdall.inter.net.il ([192.114.186.17]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16eMeN-0006md-00 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:50:39 -0500 Original-Received: from zaretsky (diup-218-145.inter.net.il [213.8.218.145]) by heimdall.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id BFK46701; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:50:31 +0200 (IST) Original-To: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-reply-to: <200202221937.g1MJbNw31079@rum.cs.yale.edu> (monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: quimby.gnus.org gmane.emacs.devel:1441 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1441 > From: "Stefan Monnier" > Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:37:23 -0500 > > I haven't seen any example where the use of > cygwin-mount.el introduces any problem (let along subtle ones). cygwin-mount.el isn't enough to solve this. To support Cygwin-style file names, we need to fix all Emacs primitives which deal with file names so that they convert them to the native Windows form. This includes ``classic'' file-name primitives, such as expand-file-name and substitute-in-file-name; less obvious ones, such as Windows-specific parts of call-process; and probably some more. This is hard (look at the mess in expand-file-name, and you'll see why), but doable. We then need to chase all the Lisp code that takes apart file names or constructs file names from their parts, and fix whatever needs fixing there. This is where I expect the major part of the effort to be spent, since the amount of code is enormous, and it's not always obvious what to do in each case. And then there are problems which are simply unsolvable in Emacs, such as when the user changes the mount points outside Emacs (so that "/" now references a different drive). So this is a significant effort, if we want to do it right. We could have solved it easier if we could make changes to the Windows run-time, but we can't. I think before someone embarks on such a journey, we should talk to Cygwin developers and ask them to solve this on their side, at least for core development tools for which Emacs provides an interface. > > I don't know on what you are basing this. Did the Cygwin developers > > say they don't intend to fix this, ever? Did anyone even ask them? > > It's based on my understanding of their intent. If their intent > is to provide a Unix API, then they pretty much have no choice. I don't see why they should have no choice. Cygwin could support both forms of file names. There's no contradiction between them, as long as Cygwin controls the run-time library, something that Emacs doesn't. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel