Re: [patch 1/9]#2 Rename `enum target_signal' to target_signal_t

Jan Kratochvil
2010-08-31T18:28:52Z

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:08:14 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> It does not matter much to me if we decide to allow types named with
> a _t suffix. But the gdb_ prefix also increases the chances of avoiding
> name collisions with external declarations.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:11:45 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> A strange ruling, I think _t is used in lots of applications.

I would prefer gdb_target_signal_t or also gdb_target_signal.

Is one of those approved?

Now I probably won't extend target_signal by any new fields (as the logic can
be kept inside linux-nat.c) so this part remains only as a "code cleanup" to
better sanity check the types compatibility (by the struct wrapping). There
have been caught several minor bugs already before and in this patchset.

Thanks,
Jan