From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8532 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2007 02:11:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 8523 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Feb 2007 02:11:44 -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, 25 Feb 2007 02:11:38 +0000 Received: from dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.95] helo=caradoc.them.org) by nevyn.them.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HL8rQ-0003cl-1e; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:11:36 -0500 Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HL8rP-0005T3-9e; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:11:35 -0500 Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [gdbserver] Use enum target_signal in _send_signal. Message-ID: <20070225021135.GA20988@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <45E0C90C.7030101@portugalmail.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45E0C90C.7030101@portugalmail.pt> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) 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: 2007-02/txt/msg00308.txt.bz2 On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 11:23:56PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > Hi all, > > This patch converts the send_signal function in target_ops to use enum > target_signal > instead of the real target number. I originally needed this for the > WinCE gdbserver port. > Windows CE doesn't have signals support, and doesn't define SIGINT in > any header. > Because of that, remote-utils.c wouldn't compile. I still want to have > support of stopping > a debuggee - this patch paves the way to that, with minimal interface > changes. I will handle > TARGET_SIGNAL_INT in the send_signal handler on the target side. > > Ok? Maybe this is the wrong abstraction entirely? Because most signals are passed to the continue / resume support, maybe the target method here doesn't need a signal number at all. We could replace it with just send_interrupt. What do you think? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery