From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17913 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2009 18:50:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 17905 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2009 18:50:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:49:41 +0000 Received: (qmail 24490 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2009 18:49:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 13 Jan 2009 18:49:39 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [0/2] Inspect extra signal information Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:50:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl References: <200901121846.51709.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200901131105.34822.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200901131850.01687.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00289.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 13 January 2009 18:41:28, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Pedro Alves > > Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:05:34 +0000 > > Cc: Mark Kettenis > > > > On Monday 12 January 2009 23:24:16, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > I don't really have much of an opinion here. I didn't think of a reason > > to be different, so I just cloned the types from glibc's headers. I > > can change that if you think it's important. > > I happen to agree with Mark. Not only we don't need to use symbols > with leading underscores, it's actually forbidden by the C Standard > (AFAIK). Such names are "reserved for the implementation" of the C > language, which we aren't. > I don't think that argument fits this case, because, well, this is really a kernel data type, which can use it's own rules. There's no way for this $_siginfo type to collide with anything in the user code. Also, these are also the types you'd see if I wasn't synthesizing it, but using the debug info instead, in case it is available --- I was actually doing that in a previous version of the patch, and synthesized the type only as a fallback, but, then considered that if we're synthesizing sometimes, might as well make it simpler and always synthesize -- less cases, less bugs, less maintenance. Do you not agree in the light of this perpective? I can change it, but I just want to make sure we're seeing the whole picture. -- Pedro Alves