From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18635 invoked by alias); 4 May 2013 13:40:24 -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 18620 invoked by uid 89); 4 May 2013 13:40:24 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 May 2013 13:40:22 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MMA00H0002L1W00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 04 May 2013 16:39:11 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MMA00GP40LBOW80@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 04 May 2013 16:39:11 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 13:40:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA] Thread exit messages on MS-Windows In-reply-to: <20130501051432.GG3525@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83r4hmlv9q.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83obd1tyi7.fsf@gnu.org> <838v44tnf8.fsf@gnu.org> <87li817699.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83mwshqrq8.fsf@gnu.org> <20130430072532.GZ3525@adacore.com> <83obcwoubz.fsf@gnu.org> <20130501051432.GG3525@adacore.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00077.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 09:14:32 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > > If we decide to do this in delete_thread, then we will have to remove > > > > the announcements in several target-specific files which do that, like > > > > linux-nat.c. Is that OK? > > > > > > I would like us to go that route also, but let's do that separately? > > > > So you are saying I should commit my proposed patch now, and deal with > > the platform-agnostic change later? I'm OK with that. > > That's correct. Your change is already a worthwhile improvement, > and won't impair the more general adjustment for later. Done.