From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26328 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2005 14:50:42 -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 26152 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2005 14:50:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cgf.cx) (66.30.17.189) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Apr 2005 14:50:23 -0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 8C29413C0BA; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:50:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Mark Mitchell , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: Support Windows in event-loop.c Message-ID: <20050425145023.GD6543@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> <01c54713$Blat.v2.4$5d0b4ea0@zahav.net.il> <20050424221806.GA13942@nevyn.them.org> <426C3270.4050608@codesourcery.com> <20050425042414.GA7322@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20050425131611.GA7821@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050425131611.GA7821@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00306.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 09:16:12AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >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. Ok... So, is it acceptable to include a console-only implementation in event-loop.c? I would think that it wasn't. That seems to suggest that some kind of generic select or poll implementation needs to be developed, probably using threads. cgf