From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31166 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2002 20:20:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31159 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 20:20:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 20:20:26 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA8Jvbw14181 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 14:57:37 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA8KKQf11083; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:20:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA8KKOs31936; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:20:24 -0500 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 26F4DFF79; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:16:14 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15820.7053.939107.423023@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 12:20:00 -0000 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: ezannoni@redhat.com, msnyder@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] TLS support part 2 In-Reply-To: <200211082005.gA8K5vbR000807@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> References: <15770.63097.522572.688579@localhost.redhat.com> <15818.32609.93569.864504@localhost.redhat.com> <200211082005.gA8K5vbR000807@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00240.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis writes: > From: Elena Zannoni > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:57:37 -0500 > > re-ping....... > > It looks good to me, except for the #ifdef THREAD_DB_HAS_TD_NOTALLOC. > This suggests that there would be some kind of autoconf test for this, > but I don't see one included with your patch. > > Mark There is one, but it was submitted separately, an unfortunate choice. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00047.html thanks Elena