From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28269 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2006 21:30:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 28260 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Dec 2006 21:30:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:30:34 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gvh71-0005uQ-IC; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 16:30:31 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] A few Cygwin testsuite fixes. Message-ID: <20061216213031.GA22650@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <457C0EE7.1010306@portugalmail.pt> <20061210173253.GA21807@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <457C4B83.4010205@portugalmail.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <457C4B83.4010205@portugalmail.pt> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 06:01:39PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > Christopher Faylor escreveu: > >On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 01:43:03PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > > > >I don't have the right to approve or commit this but I have to say that > >while the logic looks ok, I don't think the name of the variable you're > >using should be "DLLEXT". A "DLL" is generally a windows thing. Maybe > >it should be SOEXT instead. > > Thanks for taking a look. I had considered both, but, in the end I sticked > with DLLEXT, because I felt that the 'dynamic' in DLL goes more to the > point, than > 'shared' in SO goes. I can change that, no prob. > > Attached is the updated/renamed patch. > > Please review and commit. Hi Pedro, Do you want to go ahead with this or drop the $SOEXT portions (after your ld patch)? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery