From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-57828-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 21780 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2008 18:55:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 21769 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2008 18:55:54 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout6.012.net.il (HELO mtaout6.012.net.il) (84.95.2.16)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:55:13 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.211.50]) by i-mtaout6.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0K5C00B06KJ1GO50@i-mtaout6.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:54:38 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:55:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: go32-nat, always a thread
In-reply-to: <200808091853.44771.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <ud4kihvdv.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <200808080439.17254.pedro@codesourcery.com> <u3algj5qo.fsf@gnu.org> <200808091853.44771.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-08/txt/msg00251.txt.bz2

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 18:53:44 +0100
> 
>   GCC complains about attribute packed like so:
> 
>  cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors
>  ../../gdb/go32-nat.c:1292: warning: 'packed' attribute ignored for field of type 'unsigned char'
>  ../../gdb/go32-nat.c:1301: warning: 'packed' attribute ignored for field of type 'unsigned char'

This one is the only one that bother me a little, since these
structures need to match the memory layouts expected by the system
calls to which we pass them.  Does the warning mean that GCC will
never add any padding between the previous field and the `unsigned
char' field?  If so, the change is safe; if not, we need to find some
way of enforcing the no-padding layouts.

> Are the GDB parts of patches OK?  I checked that
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu still builds OK.

Thanks for all your footwork, and sorry I couldn't do this fast enough
myself (my weekend was taken by a different project).

The go32-nat.c changes are fine with me.