From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5839 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2013 07:27:33 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 5829 invoked by uid 89); 30 Apr 2013 07:27:33 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:27:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC62B2EC90; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:27:31 -0400 (EDT) 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 ECansQBWLyCj; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712242EA0E; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C5421C2AFB; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:51:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Thread exit messages on MS-Windows Message-ID: <20130430072725.GA3525@adacore.com> References: <83obd1tyi7.fsf@gnu.org> <838v44tnf8.fsf@gnu.org> <20130429102100.GY3525@adacore.com> <83ppxdqs2i.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83ppxdqs2i.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00891.txt.bz2 > I know what to do with Corinna's comment, but not what to decide about > announcing the death of the main thread. Do you have an opinion? No strong opinion, but I share your preference. > My reading of the code is that you already see that in linux-native > debugging, see linux-nat.c. 'must have missed it... sorry :). > > One tiny nitpick, very possibly influenced by personal preferences, > > so feel free to ignore... I think that the code would be faster > > to read if the added parameter was moved to the next line. That way, > > all parameters in call to windows_delete_thread would have the same > > indentation level. > > I'm surprised, but I don't mind, and will do that, too. Then don't. It's such a small comment that it's not worth changing. -- Joel