From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6159 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2009 04:59:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 6149 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2009 04:59:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_45,J_CHICKENPOX_55,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sif.is.scarlet.be (HELO sif.is.scarlet.be) (193.74.71.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:59:34 +0000 Received: from [172.17.1.2] (ip-62-235-147-185.dsl.scarlet.be [62.235.147.185] (may be forged)) by sif.is.scarlet.be (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3I4x8O1031643; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:59:09 +0200 Subject: Re: patch: Windows CE on x86 From: Danny Backx Reply-To: danny.backx@scarlet.be To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <200904172044.33672.pedro@codesourcery.com> References: <1239994229.8895.340.camel@dannypc> <200904172044.33672.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:59:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1240030749.8895.343.camel@dannypc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-scarlet.be-Metrics: sif 20001; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=3 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00472.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 20:44 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Friday 17 April 2009 19:50:29, Danny Backx wrote: > > The patch attached is a trivial one to add the target(s) for building > > gdbserver for a x86 CE target. > > Oh, exciting! No other changes required? No other changes : a clean build after this change. > I know that this is mostly copy&paste from the arm-mingw32ce > configuration, so I think it can pass by without a copyright > assignment. In any case, do you have one in place with the FSF? I've always been lazy :-) I'll get it done now though. > Just a small curiosity question before I apply this, is > there a reason this is: An attempt on my part to generalize further. Feel free to remove convert it to mingw32ce if you think that's better. Danny > > + i[34567]86-*-mingw*ce*) > > Instead of: > > > + i[34567]86-*-mingw32ce*) > > ? > -- Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info