From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-52941-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12589 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2007 18:48:05 -0000
Received: (qmail 12581 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2007 18:48:05 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.23)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:47:59 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-229-120-75.inter.net.il [84.229.120.75]) 	by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) 	with ESMTP id EMM64122 (AUTH halo1); 	Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:47:49 +0200 (IST)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:15:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uzlvtwd5t.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20071229180146.GC24999@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> (message from 	Christopher Faylor on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:01:46 -0500)
Subject: Re: PR/2386 [2/2]: MinGW attach to process without an exec file
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <47744F9C.8040604@portugalmail.pt> <20071228013457.GB7602@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <477579E0.5010809@portugalmail.pt> <20071229035030.GC30002@adacore.com> <47764306.4060903@portugalmail.pt> <20071229180146.GC24999@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
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: 2007-12/txt/msg00463.txt.bz2

> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:01:46 -0500
> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>
> 
> For the rest of the code, have you investigated
> "NtQuerySystemInformation"?  I don't know if it contains everything
> needed but, despite what the Microsoft site says, it seems to have had a
> stable interface for years and I don't see how Microsoft could change
> the functionality without breaking lots of stuff.

Since in this case Nt* APIs are used for Windows NT, I think the
chances of Microsoft changing that API in that OS are strictly zero.
So it should safe to use that on NT.  On other version of Windows, I
think there are documented solutions that don't use DLLs which might
be absent.  Pedro, is that correct, or did I miss something?