From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7432 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2007 18:56:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 7423 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2007 18:56:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:56:46 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5077E4B267 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:56:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211D14B262 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:56:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hc4TM-0000gE-GQ for gdb@sourceware.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:56:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [mingw32] stdin redirection Message-ID: <20070412185644.GA1271@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20070411134219.GA33609@adacore.com> <20070411144451.GA21140@caradoc.them.org> <20070411145104.GE58502@adacore.com> <20070411151234.GA22185@caradoc.them.org> <20070412145818.GG3886@adacore.com> <20070412151221.GA856@caradoc.them.org> <20070412155253.GH3886@adacore.com> <20070412160356.GA15004@caradoc.them.org> <20070412163113.GK3886@adacore.com> <20070412182338.GA30608@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070412182338.GA30608@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00084.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 02:23:38PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > I'll try connecting to a remote target without the pipe code. No difference on Windows 2003 Server. I swear there was a difference on XP, but I can't get at our XP system right now. Mark Mitchell pointed out the same thing that Dave did - WaitForMultipleObjects is documented to take various things. One of them is an event handle. None of them are pipe handles nor file handles. What we're doing now for pipes is within the bounds of the MS documentation; passing it directly to select is not and I think it would be unwise. Windows is confusing enough when you use it as documented. If you want to add a third case that handles files, maybe by checking if they are seekable and if so that the position is not at the end, I'd be more OK with that. You could return a signalled event handle if there are bytes and an unsignalled one if there are not. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery