From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22644 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2012 07:31:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 22572 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jul 2012 07:31:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:30:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E7E290065; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:31:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4k3+tIe78QfT; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:30:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ulanbator.act-europe.fr (ulanbator.act-europe.fr [10.10.1.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C575290053; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:30:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [Patch/RFC] SEH exceptions for Win64 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Tristan Gingold In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:31:00 -0000 Cc: Richard Henderson , GCC Patches Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <13AC40A8-4532-44C5-8DC1-617C6DEEABA7@adacore.com> References: <17C1EDE6-6479-4C93-AD30-1930864B3729@adacore.com> <50044132.60906@redhat.com> <66B66CEA-F2C6-4838-B5EB-62963E52C7DF@adacore.com> <50055D09.5000205@redhat.com> To: Kai Tietz X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg00875.txt.bz2 On Jul 17, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Kai Tietz wrote: > 2012/7/17 Richard Henderson : >> On 07/17/2012 12:35 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote: >>> So, the first element of ExceptionInformation will be exc. >>> >>> Should I add a comment ? >> >> Ah right. Definitely. >> >> Otherwise I don't see anything else in the way. Kai? >> >> >> r~ > > No, I don't have any objections. I just tested the patch myself with > full regression-test. Thank you for running the full regression-test. > So patch is ok. No regression on i386 GNU/Linux. Committed. Tristan.