From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23534 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2011 08:52:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 23408 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2011 08:52:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-iy0-f169.google.com) (209.85.210.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:52:02 +0000 Received: by iagv1 with SMTP id v1so2025130iag.0 for ; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.151.137 with SMTP id e9mr1113253icw.409.1314866699107; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:44:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.4.8 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 01:44:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83obz5ea7z.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83vctdej0n.fsf@gnu.org> <83ty8xebob.fsf@gnu.org> <83obz5ea7z.fsf@gnu.org> From: Kevin Pouget Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 09:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR/12691 Add the inferior to Python exited event To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-09/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20110901091800.7hwczNlsswpamkQf7vxjZWP_jxAJXKewKkFtQllPb6I@z> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Tom Tromey >> Cc: Kevin Pouget , gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:53:21 -0600 >> >> >>>>> "Eli" =3D=3D Eli Zaretskii writes: >> >> Eli> I'd still like to hear from someone "in the know" how is it possible >> Eli> that the exit code won't be available, but let's not block the comm= it >> Eli> on that behalf. >> >> It can happen at least on detach. > > Right, thanks. =A0Perhaps we should mention that in parentheses. > do you want it to appear in my patch, something like > Optional, will exist only in the case that the inferior exited with some = status---i.e., not detached) along with >> +An integer representing the exit code which the inferior has returned. > I think we would be better off without that "has" word. ? thanks, Kevin