From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22303 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2013 21:30:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 22289 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Feb 2013 21:30:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:30:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1RLUdx7025934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:30:39 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1RLUcTJ016428 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:30:39 -0500 Message-ID: <512E7AFE.8020909@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:33:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch]: Replace stryoul call to fetch address References: <20130227164419.GA16975@calimero.vinschen.de> <512E404E.6070504@redhat.com> <20130227200303.GA5873@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20130227200553.GB5873@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20130227200553.GB5873@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2013-02/txt/msg00716.txt.bz2 On 02/27/2013 08:05 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > Just to be a little less terse: The quoted email is me commenting on the > fact that someone submitted a patch which "#if 0"ed some code. I was > commenting on the '#if 0' not on the fact that cygwin's signal handling > with gdb is broken. AFAIK, it is working. If it isn't working then I > would never suggest that ripping out code was the right solution. I was actually thinking of this: http://www.sourceware.org/ml/cygwin-developers/2007-02/msg00052.html and IIRC some other messages on the cygwin lists in the past I had found at the time of that question. But it's useless to look for them. So you're saying that Cygwin actually does output the "cYgSiGw00f" stuff nowadays? -- Pedro Alves