From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6410 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2003 17:35:28 -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 6401 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2003 17:35:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO redhat.com) (24.131.133.249) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2003 17:35:28 -0000 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 8500832A822; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:35:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:35:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Properly define SSE registers for cygwin targets Message-ID: <20030914173526.GA26986@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030913022759.GA2225@redhat.com> <200309131102.h8DB2xvx077846@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20030913155157.GA15291@redhat.com> <200309141546.h8EFkjeO015098@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200309141546.h8EFkjeO015098@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00310.txt.bz2 On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 05:46:45PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:51:57 -0400 > From: Christopher Faylor > > Another question: If HAVE_SSE_REGS was eliminated from all source files > why wasn't it eliminated from win32-nat.c? Did I miss a memo? > >Well, I'm pretty sure I've burried a comment about Cygwin still using >HAVE_SSE_REGS somewhere in a comment of one of the zillion >i386-specific patches over the last year. Do you want me to drop you >a note if something Cygwin-specific comes up? Hmm. I usually scan the gdb-patches and gdb mailing lists for the cygwin keyword but I probably missed this. I appreciate the offer but I'll just try to make sure that I do better in the future. There's no need for you to go to extra effort. Although, if you notice something that requires an obvious fix in win32-nat.c, or whatever, then feel free to check it in (maybe you're doing that already). I'll be on the lookout for that too so that I can test changes that impact cygwin. cgf