From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2860 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2010 21:49:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 2849 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Mar 2010 21:49:02 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-96-252-118-25.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (96.252.118.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.83/v0.83-20-g38e4449) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:48:58 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF3DE13C0C8; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 16:48:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id A64652B352; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 16:48:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:49:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pierre Muller Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix remote-fileio.c compilation for Cygwin 1.5 API Message-ID: <20100308214856.GA18247@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pierre Muller References: <000901cabeda$3cd7bd00$b6873700$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20100308200858.GA28304@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100308200858.GA28304@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00335.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 03:09:04PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 05:13:06PM +0100, Pierre Muller wrote: >> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-03/msg00101.html >> >> In order to complete the fix for 1.5 Cygwin API, >> we need to fix the compilation failure in >> remote-fileio.c source. >> >> Christopher said in a previous email that he >> didn't have an opinion about that part. >> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-03/msg00260.html >> >> I do not really know if there is a specific maintainer for this >> file... Could someone (a global maintainr?) >> please review this patch? > >This is OK. Sorry, I guess I was wrong about the opinion. I do have a mild one. While I said I didn't have an opinion about this, wouldn't it really make sense to use the same mechanism that I adopted for windows-nat.c? cgf