From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6928 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2013 18:52:57 -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 6896 invoked by uid 89); 18 Nov 2013 18:52:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:52:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAIIqWiG032755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:52:32 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAIIqVMI004681; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:52:31 -0500 Message-ID: <528A61EF.8060108@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:59:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/16] conditionally define __WCLONE References: <1383757800-6332-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1383757800-6332-16-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <87ppq2vf0x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87ppq2vf0x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00487.txt.bz2 On 11/14/2013 09:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: > > Tom> This copies the definition of __WCLONE into linux-ptrace.h, in case it > Tom> is needed. > > Since we're keeping gdb_wait.h, there's no need for this patch either. > > If you look at this series you can consider that it stops at patch #13. I just did that. All looked fine to me. Thanks, -- Pedro Alves