From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa] signals 1/3 - move target_signal handling out of target.c
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:00:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B56070E.90003@cygnus.com>
References: <20010718110700.A1064@nevyn.them.org> <3B55FC9C.3080306@cygnus.com> <20010718144735.B7843@nevyn.them.org>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00462.html

> 
> I can't really think of a better name than target_signal.


Problem I have with ``target signal'' is that I'm never sure if I'm 
talking about a ``target signal'' or a ``target_signal''. 
``gdb_signal'' while contrived, is probably less ambigious.

One warped convention is to use ``siggnal'' [sic].  I don't know that 
that is any better than ``signals''.

	Andrew