From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21930 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2013 16:36:56 -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 21921 invoked by uid 89); 1 Aug 2013 16:36:56 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RDNS_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:36:55 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MQV00C0023V1H00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 19:36:47 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MQV00BX1256SG40@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 19:36:42 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:36:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Unbuffer stdout and stderr in cygwin In-reply-to: <51FA16C6.6010006@codesourcery.com> To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83pptxz7th.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1375087546-22591-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1375087546-22591-3-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <83siyxxtif.fsf@gnu.org> <51FA16C6.6010006@codesourcery.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:05:26 +0800 > From: Yao Qi > CC: > > On 07/29/2013 11:42 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > I would suggest to call the function using_cygwin_pty or some such. > > "is_in_cygwin" is IMO too ambiguous. > > > > OK, fixed in patch 1/3. Thanks. > Yes, I get your point. GDB would be less efficient on output. How > about this patch? still unbuffering stdout and stderr, due to these > regression? Apart of the change in the function's name, nothing else changed, right?