From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-61420-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25781 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2009 20:49:19 -0000
Received: (qmail 25773 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Feb 2009 20:49:18 -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, 02 Feb 2009 20:49:13 +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 n12KkWLO014873; 	Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:46:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n12KkVD0014729; 	Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:46:31 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:49:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200902022046.n12KkVD0014729@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: pedro@codesourcery.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, eliz@gnu.org, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl
In-reply-to: <200902021442.00407.pedro@codesourcery.com> (message from Pedro 	Alves on Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:42:00 +0000)
Subject: Re: [0/2] Inspect extra signal information
References: <200901121846.51709.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200901131937.26135.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200901131946.44072.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200902021442.00407.pedro@codesourcery.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-02/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:42:00 +0000
> 
> Hi guys, I'm looking at this again.
> 
> Given the argument that with this patch, the siginfo_t type before the signal
> is delivered is the the same as what is seen on the signal handler, when
> the signal is delivered to the inferior inferior, do you still think I
> should change the type, or are you OK with how things are?

I have no real issues with using the obfuscated type names.  Just
thought it was a bit ugly and thought users might prefer the
unobfuscated names.  But since I don't use Linux all that much, I
don't really care.