From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17017 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2005 23:16:51 -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 13428 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2005 23:15:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cgf.cx) (66.30.17.189) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Apr 2005 23:15:07 -0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 7BB6813C2C5; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:15:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:16:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Mark Mitchell , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, drow@false.org, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: PATCH: Support Windows in event-loop.c Message-ID: <20050425231507.GA21554@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Mitchell , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, drow@false.org, Eli Zaretskii References: <20050425145023.GD6543@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <426D05D6.8010903@codesourcery.com> <20050425150422.GA13753@nevyn.them.org> <426D0A11.4060604@codesourcery.com> <20050425152324.GA15521@nevyn.them.org> <426D0C1D.8040600@codesourcery.com> <20050425153549.GA15967@nevyn.them.org> <426D5178.6010502@codesourcery.com> <01c549da$Blat.v2.4$626aed00@zahav.net.il> <426D6518.9050305@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <426D6518.9050305@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00330.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 02:46:00PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: >Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:22:16 -0700 >>>From: Mark Mitchell >>> >>>Here is the revised patch. As per previous discussion, this version >>>still has the limitation that it only works with consoles -- but it >>>would be possible to use threads within gdb_select to extend it to work >>>with a wider variety of handles. In any case, this patch provides >>>useful functionality on Windows, and does not impose the Windows API on >>>generic code. >> >> >>This patch is fine with me. > >Thanks, committed. Wow. That was fast. The patch was ok with me, too, but it seems like you should be checking the bounds of the handles array just in the off chance that readfds is > 63. I know that it is probably vanishingly unlikely that this could ever occur but it still seems like good practice nonetheless. cgf