Daniel Jacobowitz escreveu:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 11:23:56PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This patch converts the send_signal function in target_ops to use enum 
>> target_signal
>> instead of the real target number.  I originally needed this for the 
>> WinCE gdbserver port.
>> Windows CE doesn't have signals support, and doesn't define SIGINT in 
>> any header.
>> Because of that, remote-utils.c wouldn't compile.  I still want to have 
>> support of stopping
>> a debuggee - this patch paves the way to that, with minimal interface 
>> changes.  I will handle
>> TARGET_SIGNAL_INT in the send_signal handler on the target side.
>>
>> Ok?
> 
> Maybe this is the wrong abstraction entirely?  Because most signals
> are passed to the continue / resume support, maybe the target method
> here doesn't need a signal number at all.  We could replace it with
> just send_interrupt.
> 
> What do you think?
> 


I agree.  I looked at shoehorning this into target_ops->(*resume)() with
TARGET_SIGNAL_INT, but that would be wrong, as resume expects an
already stopped process, and send_signal was used to do the actual
stopping.

How does this look?

Cheers,
Pedro Alves

---
gdb/gdbserver/ChangeLog:

    * target.h (target_ops): Rename send_signal to request_interrupt, and
    remove enum target_signal parameter.
    * linux-low.c (linux_request_interrupt): Rename from linux_send_signal,
    and always send SIGINT.
    * spu-low.c (spu_request_interrupt): Rename from spu_send_signal, and
    always send SIGINT.
    * remote-utils.c (putpkt_binary): Call request_interrupt, instead of
    send_signal.
    (input_interrupt): Likewise.