From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23586 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2006 15:54:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 23578 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2006 15:54:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 15:54:27 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FV9Zx-0006k2-Ce for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:54:25 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 15:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Signal definitions for host=mingw32/target=*-*-* Message-ID: <20060416155425.GA25863@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <44354465-FF5A-4042-B0C3-10E4823D17E3@monami-software.com> <20060415184247.GA10060@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00209.txt.bz2 On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 09:05:19AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 14:42:47 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: Masaki MURANAKA , > > gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > revision 1.50 > > date: 2005/11/28 18:32:32; author: mmitchel; state: Exp; lines: +6 -11 > > * remote-sim.c (gdbsim_wait): Pass target signal numbers to > > sim_resume. Expect target signal numbers from sim_stop_reason. > > > > There's still uses of sim_signal_to_host in the simulator, but I don't > > quite understand most of them. I think they're all buggy. I went > > over Mark's patch carefully at the time, but now I see the result of > > sim_signal_to_host being compared against signals from sim_stop_reason, > > which uses sim_signal_to_target... > > Daniel, I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that Mark's > patch was wrong in that it introduced bugs that were not there before? Since the host and target signal numberings in these ranges are exactly the same, no. It simply failed to fix some bugs which were previously present when signals are missing. The remaining calls to sim_signal_to_host should be looked at carefully; that is the correct fix for this problem. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery