From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23244 invoked by alias); 30 May 2010 17:10:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 23236 invoked by uid 22791); 30 May 2010 17:10:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-173-76-55-5.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (173.76.55.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.83/v0.83-20-g38e4449) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 May 2010 17:10:42 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E24413C061; Sun, 30 May 2010 13:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 209B02B352; Sun, 30 May 2010 13:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 18:00:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pierre Muller Subject: Re: [RFA] windows-nat.c: Copy console information for new console Message-ID: <20100530171041.GB8605@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pierre Muller References: <001901caf934$fd580460$f8080d20$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20100525205241.GA5298@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <000601cafca7$ead3af80$c07b0e80$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20100526170712.GA32594@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <001801cafd69$018b9a00$04a2ce00$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <001e01cafd6c$2a0c87c0$7e259740$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20100527151730.GA483@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <001201cafe4e$e885afa0$b9910ee0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001201cafe4e$e885afa0$b9910ee0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> 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: 2010-05/txt/msg00693.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:16:59PM +0200, Pierre Muller wrote: >> >> From Christopher Faylor >> >> I actually thought fairly carefully about flags. If you have a >> >> function >> >> which controls console info, then the function should set the flags >> >> appropriately to deal with the console info. >> > >> > >> > As you prefer, >> >here is a new version that also takes DWORD *flags as parameter. >> > I also tried to explain a little bit better >> >what the function tries to do. >> >> Thanks. Looks good. I forgot to say: Thanks for doing this. It >> looks like >> a nice improvement. > > Hi Christopher, > does this mean that you want to test it >a little bit more before you give some more detailed >review or should I understand this as an approval? Wow. You like to go back and forth don't you? Just apply it already. cgf