From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9049 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2011 13:57:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 9039 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Feb 2011 13:57:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT,TW_SF X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (HELO mailhost.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.200.154) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:57:19 +0000 Received: from md1.u-strasbg.fr (md1.u-strasbg.fr [IPv6:2001:660:2402::186]) by mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.3/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id p14DvFmp093616 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:57:15 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr) Received: from mailserver.u-strasbg.fr (ms8.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.204.17]) by md1.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.4/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id p14DvF7A071833 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:57:15 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr) Received: from E6510Muller (gw-ics.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.210.225]) (user=mullerp mech=LOGIN) by mailserver.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.4/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id p14DvEr6053190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:57:15 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr) From: "Pierre Muller" To: References: <001201cbc46c$5b95b100$12c11300$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> In-Reply-To: <001201cbc46c$5b95b100$12c11300$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> Subject: RE: [RFC] mingw port: Allow use of cvs GDB on Windows 95 Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:57:00 -0000 Message-ID: <000001cbc473$6ef9d120$4ced7360$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00057.txt.bz2 After more debugging on a more recent windows system, I now think that the close of the file descriptor scb->fd in ser_windows_close that was created using a call to _open_osfhandle with the HANDLE associated with the serial port also closes that handle. If this is correct, it probably means that the CloseHandle call that I added to win95_cancelio is not even necessary... Does anyone know if the fact that calling close on the return value of _open_osfhandle also close the real handle used in the call? The windows online documentation didn't seem really explicit... Pierre Muller.