From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-60933-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 11986 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2009 16:54:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 11975 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jan 2009 16:54:29 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from pool-96-233-71-199.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (96.233.71.199)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:54:22 +0000
Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) 	by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C70A13C028 	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Wed,  7 Jan 2009 11:54:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) 	id 5DDB62B35E; Wed,  7 Jan 2009 11:54:12 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:54:00 -0000
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: some news about the x86_64-windows port...
Message-ID: <20090107165412.GB31906@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <20090107105848.GM3664@adacore.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090107105848.GM3664@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: <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/msg00103.txt.bz2

On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 02:58:48PM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>-static BOOL WINAPI (*DebugSetProcessKillOnExit)(BOOL);
>-static BOOL WINAPI (*DebugActiveProcessStop)(DWORD);
>+static BOOL WINAPI (*kernel32_DebugSetProcessKillOnExit)(BOOL);
>+static BOOL WINAPI (*kernel32_DebugActiveProcessStop)(DWORD);

This seems like a gratuitous renaming.  Is there some reason for it?
 
Other than that minor nit, the windowss-specific stuff looks good to me.
I assume that you tested that it all still worked on 32-bit windows
right?

Btw, I'm sorry about all of the places where I used DWORD
inappropriately in win32-nat.c.  I should have known better than that
and it looks like I made your job harder.

cgf