From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25653 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2020 03:33:01 -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 25642 invoked by uid 89); 4 Mar 2020 03:33:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (209.51.188.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 03:33:00 +0000 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43582) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j9KmH-0008RZ-LG; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:32:57 -0500 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1184 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1j9KmG-0000ZF-Sx; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:32:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 03:33:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83v9nkx0a2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Simon Marchi Cc: ssbssa@yahoo.de, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: (message from Simon Marchi on Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:00:57 -0500) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement debugging of WOW64 processes References: <20200303182057.8973-1-ssbssa.ref@yahoo.de> <20200303182057.8973-1-ssbssa@yahoo.de> <834kv5xoef.fsf@gnu.org> <1055408447.6034972.1583262721877@mail.yahoo.com> <83y2shw81q.fsf@gnu.org> <4b854f69-10ea-eada-f4ba-245a02aae2e6@simark.ca> <83wo81w5cu.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-03/txt/msg00079.txt > Cc: ssbssa@yahoo.de, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Simon Marchi > Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:00:57 -0500 > > >> Eli, just wondering, did you review the code parts of this patch? > > > > I've read it, yes. I cannot say I know this area of Windows APIs well > > enough to say something intelligent, though. If the patch was tested > > with 32-bit programs, I think it's OK. > > OK, thanks. I've been looking at these Windows patches because nobody else > was reviewing them. I don't mind keeping doing that, but keep in mind that > I don't know Windows nearly as much as you, so I really appreciate that you > take a look. Thanks, I will keep this in mind in the future.