From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] signals 1/3 - move target_signal handling out of target.c Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:37:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010718153734.A9752@nevyn.them.org> References: <20010718110700.A1064@nevyn.them.org> <3B55FC9C.3080306@cygnus.com> <20010718144735.B7843@nevyn.them.org> <3B56070E.90003@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00466.html On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 06:00:46PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > I can't really think of a better name than target_signal. > > > Problem I have with ``target signal'' is that I'm never sure if I'm > talking about a ``target signal'' or a ``target_signal''. > ``gdb_signal'' while contrived, is probably less ambigious. > > One warped convention is to use ``siggnal'' [sic]. I don't know that > that is any better than ``signals''. I'd prefer to stick with target_signal unless you've got a strong preference. gdb_signal doesn't seem to gain us especially much. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer