From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3830 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2012 21:10:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 3816 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2012 21:10:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:10:28 +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 qA8LANms023105 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:10:28 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA8LAKNM030458 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:10:22 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: handle new NT_SIGINFO note in gdb References: <878vanyj3k.fsf__16012.8015945249$1351617533$gmane$org@fleche.redhat.com> <87d2zxrvuw.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87390rq319.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <509418AC.2060404@redhat.com> <87liejol6s.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <5098013C.8030101@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:10:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <5098013C.8030101@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:11:08 +0000") Message-ID: <87liebhkcj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00212.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> On 11/02/2012 07:32 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> Here's an update. This takes a bit of a brute force approach to testing >> that just one thread got a SEGV. Pedro> Thanks. Looks fine to me. Thanks. I am checking it in now. Tom