From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28230 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2009 21:13:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 28218 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jul 2009 21:13:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-98-110-183-121.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (98.110.183.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:13:47 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0ACC3B0008; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 17:13:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 9B0DFCF9D7; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 17:13:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:13:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, 'Daniel Jacobowitz' , Pedro Alves , Pierre Muller Subject: Re: [RFC-v2] Add windows Thread Information Block Message-ID: <20090701211337.GB20385@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, 'Daniel Jacobowitz' , Pedro Alves , Pierre Muller References: <000901c9f5ef$4ee06f10$eca14d30$@u-strasbg.fr> <200907011921.15134.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090701191004.GB8369@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <200907012019.16904.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200907012019.16904.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00045.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 08:19:16PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: >On Wednesday 01 July 2009 20:10:04, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>It's unreasonable to assume that a cross gdb configuration which >>understands Windows would be able to use the w32api header files? > >It could be e.g, a ppc64-linux x x86-mingw GDB. A ppc64-linux-gcc >wouldn't be able to compile the headers, and if it did by miracle, the >ABI (structure layout, endianess, etc.) would be wrong all over. Ok, point taken. Then at the very least the file should make it clear where the values come from, by including a pointer to, e.g., MSDN or, maybe some other source which doesn't change as much. And, add some more descriptive comments (although I do like the fs:OFFSET comments). As someone who has had to look these fields up many times in the past I don't think it pays to skimp on documentation. cgf