From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-51423-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25412 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2007 18:39:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 25397 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Oct 2007 18:39:14 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from pool-71-174-251-188.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO ednor.cgf.cx) (71.174.251.188)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:39:12 +0000
Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) 	id F0B872B353; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:39:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:45:00 -0000
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Support of gdb for Windows 64 native systems
Message-ID: <20071015183910.GH14543@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>, 	gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <20071013154715.GE29152@adacore.com> <4711021C.8010805@portugalmail.pt> <20071013205105.GA13789@adacore.com> <47114BB7.1000501@portugalmail.pt> <20071014051622.GC13789@adacore.com> <471200C5.6050609@portugalmail.pt> <20071014173921.GD11619@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <471259B2.6050808@portugalmail.pt> <20071014221603.GA13096@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4712A2B9.1070101@portugalmail.pt>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4712A2B9.1070101@portugalmail.pt>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00401.txt.bz2

On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 12:14:01AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 07:02:26PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>> +  flags = DEBUG_ONLY_THIS_PROCESS;
>>>>> +  toexec = exec_file;
>>>> This doesn't seem right.  You moved this setting outside of an if block
>>>> and didn't accommodate the else condition.
>>> I didn't move it.  The if inside the __CYGWIN__ block sets TOEXEC in both
>>> branches.
>> I'm talking about "flags".
>
> Sorry, should have realized it.
>
> Maybe I'm too tired, but I really can't see what's <logically> not
> right :(

You took a 'flags = ' out of the first part of an if/else block and put
it before the if block.  Doesn't that seem wrong?

cgf