From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20554 invoked by alias); 22 May 2012 13:32:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 20503 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2012 13:32:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 May 2012 13:31:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4MDVqoO032286 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 22 May 2012 09:31:52 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4MDVo4W025105; Tue, 22 May 2012 09:31:51 -0400 Message-ID: <4FBB9546.5040505@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:32:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" CC: Michael Eager , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: MIPS Linux signals References: <4FB850CA.7090701@eagerm.com> <4FBAB500.7010104@redhat.com> <4FBAB948.7000808@eagerm.com> <4FBB67AE.5090807@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00819.txt.bz2 On 05/22/2012 02:16 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2012, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> > So I think that to sort all of this out, we should: >> > >> > enum target_signal => enum gdb_signal >> > >> > target_signal_from_host => gdb_signal_from_host (or gdb_signal_from_host_signal) >> > target_signal_to_host => gdb_signal_to_host (or gdb_signal_to_host_signal) >> > >> > gdbarch_target_signal_from_host => gdbarch_gdb_signal_from_target (or gdbarch_gdb_signal_from_target_signal) >> > gdbarch_target_signal_to_host => gdbarch_gdb_signal_to_target (or gdbarch_gdb_signal_to_target_signal) > How about we call the context of the signal "inferior" here and therefore > avoid the confusion which target is the host and which host is the target > altogether? I.e.: > > enum target_signal => enum gdb_signal > > target_signal_from_host => gdb_signal_from_inferior > target_signal_to_host => gdb_signal_to_inferior > > gdbarch_target_signal_from_host => gdbarch_gdb_signal_from_inferior > gdbarch_target_signal_to_host => gdbarch_gdb_signal_to_inferior This blurs the point that gdb_signal_from_host/gdb_signal_from_inferior should never be called if not from native/host code, IOW, only when you want a mapping of the signal of the system the code is running on (host) and will thus add to confusion. I prefer my variant for making the distinction clear with the naming. -- Pedro Alves