From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31297 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2007 22:18:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 31289 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Oct 2007 22:18:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:18:34 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFA59833F for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:18:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0F398153 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:18:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IkS51-0002ca-30 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:18:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] win32-nat.c: Handle EXCEPTION_INVALID_HANDLE as SIGSYS Message-ID: <20071023221831.GA10058@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <008101c814b1$9aeb2dd0$d0c18970$@u-strasbg.fr> <20071023214730.GB5570@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071023214730.GB5570@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-10/txt/msg00556.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 05:47:30PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > So if I got this wrong and closed some handles that shouldn't have been > closed why doesn't this patch just get rid of those cases? If I've got this right - and I'm not sure I do - then the patch does two things. It stops closing some handles we shouldn't close, and it adds a new feature which is useful for debugging native Windows programs which close handles they shouldn't close (or do other bad things). If that's right, let's break it up into two please. Nothing sets old_behavior, so it's not needed - either the closes are necessary or they aren't and I suspect most or all Windows versions will be consistent about which it is. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery