From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6303 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2009 23:27:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 6224 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2009 23:27:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:26:55 +0000 Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n0CNOHT3002239; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:24:17 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n0CNOGrH019079; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:24:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:27:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200901122324.n0CNOGrH019079@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: pedro@codesourcery.com CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <200901121846.51709.pedro@codesourcery.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:46:51 +0000) Subject: Re: [0/2] Inspect extra signal information References: <200901121846.51709.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00264.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:46:51 +0000 > > Hi! > > This mini series adds support for inspecting extra signal information. > > What this means is, we get a new $_siginfo convenience variable that > is typed to look like the siginfo_t object on unix-ish platforms (but > can be any other type appropriate for the target platform). This looks pretty cool. I've often wished I had this information available. And I've also wondered about a resonable way to present it to the user. Your approach seems very reasonable to me. I can't really comment on the infrastructure to build these "computed values". But the target-sepcific support stuff seems reasonable to me. One thing I wonder about is whether it really is a good idea to is the obfuscated typenames like __uid_t instead of a straight uid_t. I realize that is the way the type is defined in headers, but in GDB we don't really have to worry about namespace pollution. The other thing I worry about is padding for these structure types that may be necessary on some platforms. Does your code handle that?