From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13311 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2009 23:18:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 13303 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jun 2009 23:18:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:18:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A8A2BAB4B; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id W0hSHtYWXIPG; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BAEC2BAB1E; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0BD68F596C; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:18:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Improve testsuite for poor expect behavior Message-ID: <20090617231843.GC14549@adacore.com> References: <20090613150505.GA28157@caradoc.them.org> <000001c9ec65$9bf13ca0$d3d3b5e0$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090613235454.GA1893@caradoc.them.org> <20090614002516.GO25703@adacore.com> <000001c9ed8a$21cfdc30$656f9490$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090616145756.GB7730@adacore.com> <000c01c9eeda$022d8a70$06889f50$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090617133626.GA24310@caradoc.them.org> <001a01c9ef9c$29d21420$7d763c60$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090617224255.GA11265@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090617224255.GA11265@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00463.txt.bz2 > > Could we use something that would also work for Win64 compilation? > > Sure, if you tell us what it is - I figured _WIN32 still worked. As far as I can tell, _WIN32 *is* defined for Win64 as well. -- Joel