From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19741 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2002 02:38:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19422 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2002 02:37:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.135.44) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2002 02:37:55 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8303EC1; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 21:37:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C94017B.2070201@cygnus.com> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:38:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] Always define all of TARGET_SIGNAL_* References: <20020227221148.A30753@nevyn.them.org> <3C7E456C.6090605@cygnus.com> <20020228115139.A8496@nevyn.them.org> <3C7E6634.4010209@cygnus.com> <20020310192038.A14083@nevyn.them.org> <3C8D68D8.8050403@cygnus.com> <20020311214925.C462@nevyn.them.org> <3C8D7D78.10805@cygnus.com> <20020316212737.A1589@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2 > I'm thinking of the net effect pulling both this patch and the other >> pending signal patch onto the 5.1 would have. (I'm not sure if you ment >> this or that I was confusing this patch with the other pending patches :-) > > > The only patch I'd particularly like in 5.2 (not 5.1 :)) is the one to > make gdbserver use signals.h, which I was going to address after this > one was done (just to reduce confusion, not because of any dependence). > I personally believe that pulling the others, particularly this one, > into 5.2 will do no more harm than pulling them into the trunk; every > day we leave them there is just a greater chance they'll be used this > way. I'm certaionly ok with (re-)pulling include/gdb/signals.h and include/gdbserver into the 5.2 branch - just as long as core GDB on the branch doesn't get modified to use them. This is also why I think sitting on this enum patch until 5.2 is released is best/easiest. As for what you posted, yep ok. But after 5.2 :-) Perhaphs a bug report so it isn't forgotten. enjoy, Andrew