From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15474 invoked by alias); 22 May 2012 00:16:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 15403 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2012 00:15:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (HELO shell4.bayarea.net) (209.128.82.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 May 2012 00:15:46 +0000 Received: (qmail 14750 invoked from network); 21 May 2012 17:15:45 -0700 Received: from c-76-102-3-160.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (HELO redwood.eagercon.com) (76.102.3.160) by shell4.bayarea.net with SMTP; 21 May 2012 17:15:45 -0700 Message-ID: <4FBADAAF.5020409@eagerm.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 00:16:00 -0000 From: Michael Eager User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" CC: Pedro Alves , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: MIPS Linux signals References: <4FB850CA.7090701@eagerm.com> <4FBAB500.7010104@redhat.com> <4FBAB948.7000808@eagerm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00803.txt.bz2 On 05/21/2012 03:48 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2012, Michael Eager wrote: > >>> BTW, I wouldn't bother with gdbarch_target_signal_to_host. Nothing ever >>> calls it. >> >> I hadn't noticed that. I thought that it was called to translate >> the signal number when sent to the target. Instead, target_signal_to_host() >> is called. > > Shall we drop the unused gdbarch API so as to avoid further confusion > then? Shouldn't target_signal_from_host be renamed to something closer to > what it really does, e.g. signal_from_target? It's not that host signals > really ever matter unless host == target in which case they're still > target signals too (this observation applies to gdbserver as well). This would be OK with me. The gdbarch_target_signal_to_host interface suggests that this should differ for different targets. There is an old bug report about the unclear name for the function. gdbarch_signal_from_target would be a better name. -- Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077