From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21517 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2005 12:08:55 -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 20581 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2005 12:08:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cgf.cx) (66.30.17.189) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Apr 2005 12:08:04 -0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 24FB613C9AC; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:08:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Mark Mitchell , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: Support Windows in event-loop.c Message-ID: <20050422120803.GD16791@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Mitchell , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200504210549.j3L5n2nP027728@sirius.codesourcery.com> <01c546a1$Blat.v2.4$e03250c0@zahav.net.il> <4267F742.2090108@codesourcery.com> <01c546b0$Blat.v2.4$c193bb40@zahav.net.il> <20050421205617.GA13146@nevyn.them.org> <426817F0.5070404@codesourcery.com> <01c54714$Blat.v2.4$a1df2140@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c54714$Blat.v2.4$a1df2140@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00277.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 11:22:56AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:15:28 -0700 >> From: Mark Mitchell >> CC: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com >> >> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> >> > Anyway, if Mark can come up with a select wrapper, then maybe we can >> > drop the question entirely. >> >> I'm sure I can, if that's the only way to get this functionality into >> GDB. > >It's not the _only_ way, but it's the _preferred_ way, at least in my >opinion. (If other maintaners, besides Daniel, disagree with me, >please speak up.) If it becomse clear that doing what I asked is >going to be a major project, I assure you I will withdraw my >objections right there and then. Well, again, I have a rather major technical concern about the use of WaitForMultipleObjects in this scenario, so as the Windows maintainer, I'd like to see that addressed. You can't reliably just use WaitForMultiple on, say, a serial port, a socket, or a pipe, so I don't know how this would ever work. cgf