From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13593 invoked by alias); 29 May 2019 15:03:06 -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 13585 invoked by uid 89); 29 May 2019 15:03:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HTo:U*palves 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, 29 May 2019 15:03:04 +0000 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:52992) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hW06Y-0007dw-4w; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:03:02 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3621 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hW06X-00015v-FB; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:03:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 15:03:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83woi9xpzl.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <77691670-d0ed-6094-c48d-3a3ced99a5b8@redhat.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Wed, 29 May 2019 13:37:56 +0100) Subject: Re: [RFAv3 2/6] Improve process exit status macros on MinGW References: <20190504161753.15530-1-philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be> <20190504161753.15530-3-philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be> <83muj7216g.fsf@gnu.org> <77691670-d0ed-6094-c48d-3a3ced99a5b8@redhat.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-05/txt/msg00638.txt.bz2 > Cc: philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 13:37:56 +0100 > > > We should probably do this everywhere where it matters whether the > > inferior exited due to a fatal signal. > > Wouldn't it better to leave that translation out of this patch series, > and do it everywhere it matters as a separate change, to avoid > creating inconsistencies? Might be simpler for Philippe too, since > the current patch isn't OK as is. It's up to you guys, I don't have a strong opinion about that.