From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4174 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2007 08:51:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 4165 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2007 08:51:24 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (64.233.182.187) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:51:22 +0000 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b11so121537nfh for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.204.7 with SMTP id b7mr187510hug.1193215879157; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.188.17 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4053daab0710240151m322d1fc6yc2efa6a6b5058e1e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:47:00 -0000 From: "Pedro Alves" To: "Eli Zaretskii" Subject: Re: [RFC] win32-nat.c: Handle EXCEPTION_INVALID_HANDLE as SIGSYS Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <008101c814b1$9aeb2dd0$d0c18970$@u-strasbg.fr> <20071023214730.GB5570@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 52e22d9ca719acdf X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2007-10/txt/msg00569.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:47:30 -0400 > > From: Christopher Faylor > > > > And, amusingly enough, this patch illustrates, within days of making > > mingw available, exactly the kind of situation I didn't want to get into > > by allowing gdb to build under MinGW. It forces me to evaluate a > > multipage patch which isn't needed for Cygwin. > I'll do my best to help review MinGW patches. Often I'll need a bit more time to get to it, and often will only be able to in weekends. But, I'll get to them. > Which is exactly the reason I suggested to make MinGW a separate > target with a separate *-nat.c file. > Not just yet please :) I'm sure that when the patches will be split, they'll be rather smallish. Hey, it was an RFC, not an RFA! Cheers, Pedro Alves