From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7742 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2009 20:13:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 7722 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Sep 2009 20:13:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-98-110-183-151.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (98.110.183.151) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:13:48 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936AC13C002 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 8B39C2B352; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:13:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] windows-nat.c: Handle CTRL_BREAK_EVENT in ctrl_c_handler Message-ID: <20090930201338.GA15359@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <002001ca3acf$a0d8bb40$e28a31c0$@u-strasbg.fr> <83hbuwurzc.fsf@gnu.org> <000601ca3b9a$3cbbe670$b633b350$@u-strasbg.fr> <83ocoxsl83.fsf@gnu.org> <000001ca40d6$9ac3c260$d04b4720$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090929141530.GM9003@adacore.com> <000301ca4111$8d733e70$a859bb50$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090930200927.GA15314@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090930200927.GA15314@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00964.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 04:09:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 04:31:37PM +0200, Pierre Muller wrote: >> In fact, I double checked, >>but Chris never answered about the 7 branch... > >Huh? You said you committed the CTRL_BREAK_EVENT patch in this thread >to the gdb_7_0_branch. > >If you'r talking about your other patch in another thread, then I'm not >comfortable with that going into either the trunk or the branch. It >seems too much like a band-aid. Ah, sorry. I see. I missed a query. I was ignoring this thread after the initial approval since it strayed into a discussion the exact right syntax to use for the documentation. I have no problems with this going into the branch and actually mistakenly thought that it was being proposed for both branch and trunk. cgf