From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-60922-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 22209 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2009 12:30:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 22178 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jan 2009 12:30:02 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:29:58 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n07CTqeS011430; 	Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:29:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n07CTpfg012209; 	Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:29:51 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:30:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200901071229.n07CTpfg012209@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: schwab@suse.de
CC: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <jeaba3nw7a.fsf@sykes.suse.de> (message from Andreas Schwab on 	Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:21:13 +0100)
Subject: Re: some news about the x86_64-windows port...
References: <20090107105848.GM3664@adacore.com> 	<200901071130.n07BUctK004303@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <jeaba3nw7a.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
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: 2009-01/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2

> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:21:13 +0100
> 
> Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:
> 
> >> --- a/gdb/configure.ac
> >> +++ b/gdb/configure.ac
> >> @@ -774,7 +774,7 @@ AC_FUNC_ALLOCA
> >>  AC_FUNC_MMAP
> >>  AC_FUNC_VFORK
> >>  AC_CHECK_FUNCS([canonicalize_file_name realpath getrusage getuid \
> >> -                getgid poll pread64 sbrk setpgid setpgrp setsid \
> >> +                getgid kill poll pread64 sbrk setpgid setpgrp setsid \
> >>  		sigaction sigprocmask sigsetmask socketpair syscall \
> >>  		ttrace wborder setlocale])
> >
> > Why the hell do we need to add a check for a function defined by ISO C90?
> 
> I think you are mixing that with raise, C90 does not have kill.

Not sure what I've been smoking... Andreas is right of course.  But it
does raise the question why event-top.c isn't using raise(...) instead
of kill(getpid(), ...).