From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9545 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2012 21:08:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 9535 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2012 21:08:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO 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; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:08:31 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99AEC1C6B45; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:08:30 -0500 (EST) 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 yBDpKZBsrFEk; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:08:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54ECA1C6B04; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:08:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 440ACC8803; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:08:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:08:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [10/10] RFC: remove gdb_wait.h Message-ID: <20121115210828.GG3790@adacore.com> References: <87obiyzns7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87wqxmwthq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83wqxmsi32.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83wqxmsi32.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00441.txt.bz2 > This could break the MinGW build some day, or maybe even today: its > definition of WIFSIGNALED and WIFEXITED is inaccurate for Windows. > > I say "some day" because it looks like we don't actually use > WIFSIGNALED in any file that is compiled on Windows (not sure about > WIFEXITED, though). In that case, let's be proactive and contribute a patch to gnulib? You seem to know what the problem is, so you'd be the best candidate. -- Joel