From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29364 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2005 13:16:35 -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 28980 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2005 13:16:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Apr 2005 13:16:12 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DQ3Rc-000288-2v; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:16:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:16:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Mitchell , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: Support Windows in event-loop.c Message-ID: <20050425131611.GA7821@nevyn.them.org> 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> <01c54713$Blat.v2.4$5d0b4ea0@zahav.net.il> <20050424221806.GA13942@nevyn.them.org> <426C3270.4050608@codesourcery.com> <20050425042414.GA7322@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050425042414.GA7322@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 12:24:14AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 04:57:36PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > >Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >>I guess I don't see this as a problem, while you do. In any case, > >>since Chris has raised technical objections, I'm going to sit back and > >>see what the next revision looks like. Hopefully it will make us both > >>happier. > > > >I, too, am waiting on Chris' comments re. my justification for using > >WaitForMultipleObjects. If it turns out that this is not the right > >primitive to use, then we'll have to revisit that side of things, but I > >suspect that the choice between directly modifying the file and > >providing a (almost-certainly incomplete) implementation of "select" > >will probably remain. > > Sorry. I didn't know you were waiting for any further feedback from me. > > Your last message implied that the only handle which ever makes it into > a select call is a console handle. Is that right? I thought that it > was also used for serial I/O and GDB/MI. It is only the console handle - in the configuration that Mark's been testing. Currently, we always select for READ|EXCEPT. MI uses it for stdin (on Unix this would be either a console for testing, or a pipe); GDB and TUI use it for the console; and ser-base uses it for serial IO. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC