From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 117809 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2020 21:01:01 -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 117792 invoked by uid 89); 3 Mar 2020 21:01:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 21:01:00 +0000 Received: from [172.16.0.95] (192-222-181-218.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.181.218]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A1211E5F3; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:00:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement debugging of WOW64 processes To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: ssbssa@yahoo.de, gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 21:01:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83wo81w5cu.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2020-03/txt/msg00071.txt On 2020-03-03 3:28 p.m., Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> From: Simon Marchi >> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 14:36:53 -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. I looked at this patch quickly, it seems to add some code duplication and complexity, but that looks difficult to avoid without some serious refactoring (which would of course be nice, but not required for adding this feature). The only bit I don't particularly like is the inclusion of i386-windows-nat.c in amd64-windows-nat.c, that just seems weird, and not very good in a long term maintenance perspective. Can you instead include the i386-windows-nat.c file in the cygwin64 and mingw64 builds (in configure.nat), so that it gets compiled in a more standard fashion? Simon