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

Tom Tromey
2010-09-01T22:35:03Z

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:

I read through this thread today.

Jan> Keeping the `enum target_signal' name would contradict (**) the
Jan> sole remaining meaning of the [patch 3/9]#2 patch (*) - making
Jan> target_signal and `int host_signal' type incompatible catching
Jan> various bugs in the current code.

I think this is still worth doing. This sort of compile-time check
catches real bugs cheaply.

I think your approach is the most reasonable overall of the ones that
have been proposed. If I read the thread correctly, nobody actually
objected to the use of a struct that is passed by value. So, I propose
moving forward with that.

I didn't follow the naming discussion as closely, and I don't really
have an opinion. So here I suggest picking any name that was proposed,
that you like, and that was not objected to.

thanks,
Tom