From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19264 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2008 16:39:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 19208 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2008 16:39:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-96-237-242-157.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (96.237.242.157) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:39:00 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E9D13C067; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:38:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 354332B386; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:38:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:34:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Nicolas Roche , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFA/win32] Improve C-c handling when process in different console Message-ID: <20081112163849.GA21312@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Nicolas Roche , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker References: <20081002225504.GF26384@adacore.com> <20081022164447.GB3638@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081022164447.GB3638@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00239.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:44:47AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> 2008-10-02 Nicolas Roche >> >> * win32-nat.c (check_for_DebugBreakProcess): New function. >> (ctrl_c_handler): New function. >> (win32_wait): Register ctrl_c_handler as Ctrl-C handler if the inferior >> is run in a separate console. >> (_initialize_win32_nat): Check for DebugBreakProcess in kernel32.dll. > >Ping? > >http://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-10/msg00070.html I'm very sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to this. Vacation and work have intervened. I have an even older patch sitting in my inbox from Pierre Muller which, I think, attempts to address the same problem but seems to involve more code. One of the reasons that I have not responded sooner is that I have a patch in my sandbox which would surely conflict with this since it changes the mechanism used to determine the existence of newer functions like DebugBreak. So, anyway, I'll finish up my patch and adopt this change to it this weekend, checking in both. Sorry for the delay. Please ping me again if you don't see this going in in the next week or so. cgf