From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17883 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2002 16:51:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17692 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 16:51:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 16:51:42 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16gTmN-0002IL-00; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:51:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] Always define all of TARGET_SIGNAL_* Message-ID: <20020228115139.A8496@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020227221148.A30753@nevyn.them.org> <3C7E456C.6090605@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C7E456C.6090605@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00742.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 09:57:48AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >I've been meaning to fix this since I noticed it last summer. These > >numbers > >are part of the remote protocol. While I think the last ones are never > >sent > >over the wire, they could be (with the exception of TARGET_SIGNAL_LAST > >which > >is -not- part of the protocol, as I understand it). Having them jump > >around > >is bad. > > Wasn't this enum going to be moved to signals.h? I think so, but I didn't see any pressing reason to. If you want, I can do that. OK otherwise? -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer